Community Pharmacies
 - Question

Baroness Cumberlege: To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have for making the best use of community pharmacies.

Baroness Hodgson of Abinger: I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my noble friend Lady Cumberlege’s name on the Order Paper.

Lord Evans of Rainow: My Lords, community pharmacies make a vital contribution to the provision of primary care. The Government and the sector continue to implement their vision, agreed in 2019, to make better use of the skills and expertise of community pharmacy teams. This aims to develop the role of community pharmacy in managing demand for urgent care, supporting optimal use of medicines and prevention and detection services. We continue to explore what else community pharmacy could be commissioned to do.

Baroness Hodgson of Abinger: Is my noble friend aware that, since 2015, funding for community pharmacies has been cut by around 30% and around 720 pharmacies have closed? Many pharmacies have had to reduce their hours and provide prescriptions and other services at a loss. The NHS estimates that 6% of all GP consultations could be transferred to community pharmacies; however, this service is limited due to unnecessary bureaucracy, requiring patients to be referred by their GP. Can my noble friend please confirm whether the Government will enter into discussions with the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee to look at introducing a fairly funded “pharmacy first” service as soon as possible, to help to relieve GPs’ workload?

Lord Evans of Rainow: I thank my noble friend for that important question regarding pharmacies. Although we are yet to label our service offer as “pharmacy first”, we have already introduced and funded a range of services in community pharmacy that make use of the clinical skills of pharmacy teams and take the pressure off GPs and other parts of the NHS. We continue to discuss with the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee how the Government can best support community pharmacies and the sector to provide services to patients.

Lord Scriven: Due to government policy, primary care networks are recruiting pharmacists from community settings. In January 2023, it was confirmed that about 4,100 pharmacies have been recruited into PCNs, with a large proportion of those being recruited from  community pharmacy. Community pharmacy owners are now becoming more dependent on locum pharmacists to fill vacancies, and the fees have gone up by 80%. What will the Government do to deal with this problem as a matter of urgency to support local community pharmacists?

Lord Evans of Rainow: Health Education England’s 2021 community pharmacy workforce survey identified an increase in the number of pharmacists from 23,284 in 2017 to 27,406. From 2026, all  newly graduated pharmacists will have a prescription qualification, and we will upskill the existing workforce. This will provide further opportunity for the community pharmacy sector to better support the delivery of primary care.

Baroness Wheeler: Of the 720 permanent pharmacy closures since 2015, 41% are in 20% of the most deprived areas. I cannot see how this squares with the Government’s vision of using pharmacies to relieve pressures on GPs and primary care. Both large and small pharmacies are affected, including those in supermarkets such as Sainsbury’s, Asda and Tesco. Boots is reducing essential pharmacy services, such as the provision of blister medicine packs for the safe taking and administering of daily medicines by patients, domiciliary care workers and carers who look after elderly and disabled patients. How will the Minister address this issue, which stands to affect thousands of patients?

Lord Evans of Rainow: My Lords, 80% of the population live within 20 minutes’ walking distance of a pharmacy. There are twice as many pharmacies in more deprived areas. Despite a reduction in the network in recent years, there are still about the same number of pharmacies today as there were 10 years ago.

Lord Rogan: My Lords, in answer to my Written Question last November the noble Lord, Lord Caine, conceded that
“This Government has had no discussions with Community Pharmacy NI about funding for pharmacies in Northern Ireland.”
In the subsequent four months, the crisis facing community pharmacies in the Province, which rural communities are so reliant on, has continued, with the future of some clearly at risk. I urge the Minister to ensure that community pharmacies in Northern Ireland are given active support from His Majesty’s Government so that they do not become the latest casualties of the political vacuum in the Province.

Lord Evans of Rainow: Unfortunately, I was not in the House in November last year, but I hear very strongly what the noble Lord is saying about healthcare and pharmacies in Northern Ireland and I will certainly feed that back to the department.

Lord Grade of Yarmouth: My Lords, what has to happen in the independent pharmaceutical sector for the Government to realise that there is a crisis? This has been running for years. Independent pharmacies are closing at an alarming rate, as we have  heard from other Members of this House. The Government seem to be in total denial. What has to happen for the Government to recognise and confront this issue? How many pharmacies have to close? Are they waiting for them all to close before they recognise the problem?

Lord Evans of Rainow: My Lords, there are more than 11,000 pharmacies in England. Some people know the true value of local pharmacies, but people do not always know just what pharmacies are able to do and how skilled pharmacists are at diagnosing minor illnesses. We want to continue to unleash the potential and make the best possible use of the skills and knowledge of community pharmacy teams to support the wider NHS. As I said earlier, from 2026 all newly graduated pharmacists will have a prescribing qualification: we are upskilling the existing workforce.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, do the Government recognise that local pharmacists may well be the people who know best of all who is seriously ill and potentially at the end of life in a particular area? They may have been involved in dispensing a just-in-case box for the family. They may know that that a patient is taking a lot of complementary therapies but, without access to the clinical record and a systematic way of feeding the information in, they become an add-on to the clinical service, rather than being able to contribute. They may also be unable to give really appropriate, targeted advice as part of the clinical team. Will the Government seriously look at ways of ensuring that community pharmacists can, with patients’ permission, access the clinical record, to really understand what is happening to these patients, who are very vulnerable and need good advice?

Lord Evans of Rainow: The noble Baroness raises several good points there. From my personal experience of pharmacies, they do have access to those records, but unfortunately that is not across the board and there is still more to be done on that front.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, would the Minister like to have another go at answering the question from the noble Lord, Lord Grade? I did not really get from him any sense of how the Government are dealing with the crisis in community pharmacy. There has been a 30% cut in real terms since 2015. As he said, many independent pharmacies are going to the wall. They are faced today with huge inflationary pressures, yet all we get are platitudes from the Government. When will they do something?

Lord Evans of Rainow: My Lords, they are private businesses and some close, some open and there are changes. As I said in an answer I gave earlier, there are still the same number of pharmacies as there were 10 years ago.

Lord Flight: My Lords, what proportion of GP services could be provided by pharmacies?

Lord Evans of Rainow: Six per cent.

Lord Lansley: My Lords, we can anticipate that our Prime Minister understands something about pharmacy for obvious reasons. In my experience over some years, the opportunity lies in the hands of local NHS commissioners. The contract allows them to commission additional services such as minor illness services and, in the past, medicine use reviews, but they often did not do so. What steps might the Government now take with ICBs to encourage them to undertake more of the commissioning of additional services?

Lord Evans of Rainow: I thank my noble friend for that very good question. ICBs are encouraged to do exactly what he says. I refer to an answer I gave earlier: from summer 2023, NHS England will start piloting prescribing services in community pharmacies—exactly as he suggests.

Baroness Jolly: My Lords, the best use of community pharmacies will come at a price. Can the Minister give us an indication of how much that will cost? Has anyone calculated how much it will save GPs? If he does not have the figures to hand, could he put them in the Library?

Lord Evans of Rainow: The noble Baroness is exactly right: I do not have those figures to hand, but I will write to her.

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering: My noble friend is aware of the work I do with dispensing doctors and the fact that they have a role to play where there is no pharmacy. Is he as concerned as I am that routine procedures, such as syringing of ears, are being taken away from general practice? Why can general practitioners not continue to do such routine procedures?

Lord Evans of Rainow: My noble friend raises a very good point. I have experience in my own family of GP practice doing exactly that. I am not aware of that being deliberately taken away but, if she wants to speak to me about a specific case, I will certainly look into it.

Police and Crime Commissioners
 - Question

Lord Lexden: To ask His Majesty’s Government what recent discussions they have held with the Police and Crime Commissioners for Cleveland, and for Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland.

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: My Lords, the Government engage regularly with PCCs and chief constables across all force areas. There have been no recent specific discussions between the Government and the PCC for Cleveland or the PCC for Leicestershire.  However, there have been official-level discussions that I am happy to advise the House about separately as required. The Government recently responded to written correspondence received from the PCC for Cleveland on 9 February. The correspondence sought clarification on the management and extension of misconduct hearings, which are matters for legally qualified chairs.

Lord Lexden: My Lords, I remind the House that for many months, through many questions, I have been trying to find out why a police gross misconduct hearing in Cleveland, announced in August 2021, has still not started. A former chief constable, Mike Veale—a man dogged by controversy, to put it politely, since he vilified Sir Edward Heath several years ago—is due to appear at this hearing. A detailed report on the complaints against Mr Veale, still unpublished by the Independent Office for Police Conduct following a two-year inquiry, preceded the announcement of this hearing 18 months ago. Things often proceed far too slowly where police misconduct is concerned, but this must surely be a record. Are the Government absolutely content for this hearing to be indefinitely delayed, perhaps never to take place? Are the Government absolutely content that the legally qualified chair, who has sole charge of this hearing, should remain anonymous, even though, in the words of a Written Answer that I received on  22 February:
“There are no provisions in legislation which entitle legally qualified chairs of police misconduct hearings to remain anonymous”?
Are the Government absolutely content that an autonomous, anonymous chair should deny the public any reason why this hearing has not started?

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: My Lords, I refer my noble friend to an answer I gave in Grand Committee on 23 February, when I said that
“the Cleveland PCC has no power over the legally qualified chair”—
except inasmuch as he appoints him or her—
“who must commence a hearing within 100 days of an officer being provided a notice referring them to proceedings, but may extend this period where they consider that it is in the interests of justice to do so.”—[Official Report, 23/2/23; col. GC 494.]
That is the case here and, as I have said many times from the Dispatch Box, I am afraid I really cannot go beyond that.

Lord Bach: My Lords, following on from  the noble Lord’s Question, are the Government aware that the office of the Cleveland police and crime commissioner has delayed answering a series of relevant freedom of information questions on two separate occasions, claiming that it needs more time? Last Friday, on the last possible date allowed by the law, it refused point-blank to answer any of them. Does this course of action sound like it comes from an open, public-facing organisation or one perhaps covering its tracks?

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: My Lords, I am not familiar with the FoI requests that were put in, so I cannot really speak to them. I was very pleased to see that Cleveland’s most recent PEEL report, which was also published on Friday 17 March, indicates that very   good progress has been made under the leadership of the chief constable, Mark Webster. The noble Lord will also be aware that the PCC, Steve Turner, attends the PPOGs. I commend them both on doing a decent job.

Lord McFall of Alcluith: My Lords, we have a virtual contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond.

Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I declare an interest as a former chair of a police authority. If police and crime commissioners have been so successful, as the Minister and the Government claim, why have so many of them let their police forces fall into special measures?

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: My Lords, I think I have partially answered that. I am delighted to say that Cleveland is starting to make serious progress on the engagement front. I have also answered a number of questions from the noble Baroness about police authorities before. For reference, they consisted of 17 members, nine of whom were elected, drawn from a local authority and reflecting its political make-up. The remaining eight were called independent members and were appointed from the local community for fixed terms. The implication in this House was that they were in some ways more democratic than the police and crime panels and police and crime commissioners. I do not think that is the case.

Lord Deben: Does my noble friend accept that, despite his answers, there is considerable unhappiness about this whole story? I understand how difficult it is for him but, frankly, it will no longer wash that an individual who has behaved in a wholly unsatisfactory way, as far as one can see, is just not taken to task. Will he agree to look at this again and find an answer for those of us who have been pressing for many years to try to get one?

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: I completely accept the noble Lord’s unhappiness—and possibly share it, because I have to answer this question on a regular basis. Unfortunately, the Government have no powers to intervene, as he will be aware, in the misconduct process. There are reasons why it has been held up, but I cannot say them.

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb: My Lords, the Government have promised to make police and crime commissioners more accountable, because getting held to account only once every four years is not really enough. What exact measures will the Government put in place to make sure that they respond to the people for whom they are responsible?

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: The noble Baroness asks a good question. As she will be aware, we have passed secondary legislation to enact changes to the PCC voting system. This reform will clarify and simplify it and make it easier for the public to hold their PCCs accountable at the ballot box. We are increasing the  transparency of PCCs by amending the specified information order so that PCCs are now required to publish additional information to allow the public to hold them to account, including their progress against the Government’s national priorities for policing,  recent HMICFRS reports and additional complaints information. There are also recommendations to improve scrutiny, which I can go into. A lot has been done.

Lord Cormack: My Lords, month after month and year after year, Ministers stand at that Dispatch Box and give wholly unsatisfactory answers. There is deep concern, as my noble friend Lord Deben made plain a few moments ago, and as my noble friend Lord Lexden has made plain time after time. If the rules prevent my noble friend the Minister giving a satisfactory answer, one is tempted to quote Mr Bumble: if the law says that, the law is an ass. Will my noble friend try to do something so that, when he comes to the Dispatch Box next time, he can give a sensible and meaningful answer?

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: My Lords, I am sorry that my noble friend finds it unsatisfactory. I think it would be unsatisfactory for me to stand here and make a comment that might prejudice a judicial inquiry. I am not going to do that.

Lord Dobbs: My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, and his persistence in trying to learn the lessons from this hugely unfortunate episode. Law and order go to the very heart of what a civilised society stands for. I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, will tomorrow deliver a report on the Metropolitan Police that will give the police force yet another good kicking. Does the Minister not agree that it is not enough to leave all these things up to police and crime commissioners, let alone the Mayor of London? The Government have to take a central role in dealing with what is an ongoing and deeply serious problem.

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: My Lords, I agree up to a point. The Government are taking a central role, not least through the review into the dismissal process that I have talked about before. I have little doubt that that will become a topical subject within the next 24 hours. That will look into the composition of misconduct panels, including the impact of the role of legally qualified chairs; more broadly, it will look at things such as the appeals mechanism and the effectiveness of the performance system, including for officers who have failed vetting. That review was launched on 17 January and was said to take about four months to conclude. We are getting towards the end of that process, so there will be more to be said.

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, the Minister said he has no powers to intervene. He also said there is a judicial process in which he does not want to intervene. Can he give the House a date by which that judicial process will start?

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: I am afraid I cannot.

Lord Butler of Brockwell: My Lords, I will make what I hope is a helpful suggestion. Could the Minister not give a briefing to the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and perhaps to the Leader of the Opposition on a privy counsellor basis? If there is some good reason, they could then reassure those who are understandably indignant about this delay.

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: I am happy to reassure the House on that point. I am seeing my noble friend Lord Lexden this Wednesday. He chose not to mention it, but I will.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I declare an interest having, together with the late Lord Newton of Braintree, presented the seven Nolan principles of conduct in public life to Parliament. Does my noble friend the Minister recognise that two of those principles, accountability and openness, are not evident in the responses he has been able to deliver so far? Can he please ensure that all holders of public office know that they have to be
“accountable to the public for their decisions and actions and must submit themselves to scrutiny necessary to ensure this”?
On openness, they must
“act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner. Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for so doing.”

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: I accept the question from my noble friend. Yes, they are expected to adhere to the Seven Principles of Public Life, as determined and published by the Nolan committee. The office of the PCC is also expected to ensure that the PCC is adhering to the Nolan principles. In each force area, the actions and decisions of PCCs are scrutinised by their police and crime panels. On the case of Leicestershire—which I suspect is at least partly informing my noble friend’s question—I am happy that the standards are now being met there. They should have been met before, but the Government—as we have said before from the Dispatch Box in the strongest possible terms—expect that PCCs appointing to senior positions in their offices follow the process clearly set out in legislation. I am very pleased to say that Leicestershire is now doing that.

Council of Europe: Death Penalty
 - Question

Baroness Chakrabarti: To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they remain (1) opposed to the use of the death penalty, and (2) committed to the United Kingdom’s membership of the Council of Europe.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, it is a long-standing policy of the UK Government to oppose the death penalty in all circumstances as a matter of principle, and we have no  plans to reintroduce it. The United Kingdom is committed to its membership of the Council of Europe, which remains an important forum for our human rights and foreign policy agenda.

Baroness Chakrabarti: I am grateful, as always, to the Minister for his Answer. Noble Lords will appreciate that I tabled this Question some weeks ago in direct response to comments by the Prime Minister’s appointee as deputy chair of the Conservative Party about the death penalty, but also because of consistent comments on and off the record by Justice and Home Affairs Secretaries at the other end of the Corridor. By contrast, the Minister is a strenuous advocate for rights, freedoms and the international rule of law. Is this contradiction at the heart of government sustainable, let alone helpful?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, what I can say to the noble Baroness is that when I speak from this Dispatch Box, I speak for the Government and I emphasise and stress what the Government’s policy is, and that will continue to be the case.

Lord Anderson of Swansea: My Lords, the European Convention on Human Rights is a core part of the Council of Europe—indeed, some would say the raison d’etre—yet there are persistent voices in the Conservative Party calling to leave the convention, fearing some blockage in the policy relating to boat people. Do the Government agree that if we were to leave, by design or inadvertence, that would in effect mean leaving the Council of Europe?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, during the Second World War and, indeed, just after it, Sir Winston Churchill was one of the key architects of the Council of Europe and that remains the case. I can do no better than to quote the current chief executive of the Government, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, who said on 27 February that “the United Kingdom is a member of the European Convention on Human Rights and will remain a member of the ECHR”.

Lord Collins of Highbury: My Lords, having a policy is one thing, but there is also a requirement to be a strong advocate. As the noble Lord knows, I questioned him last week about the situation in Saudi Arabia, a country that last year executed a huge number of people—81 in one day. Can he reassure me that on future occasions when someone’s life is under threat, not only he but the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister will stand up for this policy and urge Saudi Arabia not to execute people?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, as I assured the noble Lord last week when we discussed the tragic execution of Mr al-Kheir, we remain absolutely vigilant in respect of imminent executions such as those that took place. This was a tragic event and totally against our policy. I assure the noble Lord of my good offices and indeed others across government in making the case that, as I said in answering the  noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, the United Kingdom has opposed, still opposes and will continue to oppose the death penalty in all respects.

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem: My Lords, I accept the good faith of the Minister, and I try to avoid on these occasions autobiography in your Lordships’ House, but as Crown counsel successfully and defence counsel unsuccessfully, I have participated in cases where the accused would have hanged but for the abolition of the death penalty. Nothing in that experience ever persuaded me that capital punishment should be restored, which makes it all the more astonishing that his party should have appointed someone to a senior position who believes that it should.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, I of course equally respect the noble Lord, and I listened very carefully to his question. I have quoted the Prime Minister, and let me assure the noble Lord that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has also articulated her view that the current sentencing is sufficient to deal with crimes of all different natures, including the most severe. She herself has voiced her opposition to the introduction of capital punishment.

Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, in view of the comments to which the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, has drawn attention, does the Minister agree that there is something deeply ironic about a society condemning the taking of a person’s life, and in order to demonstrate exactly how strongly it does so, doing exactly that through a judicial killing?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, I am not quite clear as to the premise of the right reverend Prelate’s question. However, I do agree with him that when we articulate policies from the Dispatch Box in your Lordships’ House or the other place, we should articulate what those views are and what the law is. Let me say once again for clarity that the Government have no plans to introduce capital punishment domestically, and we will continue to oppose the death penalty internationally.

Baroness Falkner of Margravine: My Lords, the Minister mentioned his responses as of last Thursday, when we discussed the killing of Hussein Abo al-Kheir. We know that Saudi Arabia resumed the death penalty in November 2022 and that it murdered 11 people in March alone through those means. We also know that it has restituted its law whereby you can be executed for drug smuggling and narcotics offences—which, in some terms, are not as serious as you might expect, even in a country like Saudi Arabia. How many times has he called in the Saudi ambassador since the death penalty was reinstated in November?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, if the noble Baroness was present last week, she will know that I recounted I think at least eight or nine occasions on which I have been in touch and had direct discussions with His Excellency the ambassador for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Indeed, on the evening before the sad  execution of Mr al-Kheir, I was in touch with the Human Rights Commission of, the Foreign Minister of, and, indeed, the ambassador of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Lord Hannan of Kingsclere: My Lords,  given that the rights adumbrated in the ECHR are anticipated—predated, sometimes, by centuries—by the laws of this country, what does my noble friend the Minister fear would be the right we would lose if we were to abrogate the convention?

Baroness Chakrabarti: The death penalty?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: I think we have heard one of the points from the other side of the House. It is extremely important that the United Kingdom is a guardian of the rule of law internationally. We also make the case very strongly that as we ourselves have evolved, we hope that other countries have evolved. In 1965, I believe, we abolished the death penalty. We worked constructively with other countries towards achieving that aim. Of course, the conventions that we set up and create need to adapt and evolve, but the convention to stand against capital punishment and the death penalty is, I believe, the right one, and long may it continue.

Lord Griffiths of Burry Port: My Lords, I declare, as a possible conflict of interest, that I am a member of the Council of Europe and this Parliament’s delegation to Strasbourg. Last week, I was in Paris for a meeting of the migration committee. I am delighted to hear the noble Lord’s reassurance of a total commitment, but it does not feel like that from the point of view of the other parliamentarians I meet. Their comments about last year’s Nationality and Borders Act and our current Illegal Migration Bill suggest huge scepticism from them and the UNHCR about the commitment of this Parliament to the conventions of the Council of Europe. Can the Minister give me a little ammunition, since there are no Conservative Members on the migration committee?  I am the only defender of British policy—can your Lordships believe that? Is there any way in which he can help us to rebut, qualify or put in a different perspective the current thinking, which is very radical, of the Council of Europe towards us?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: Of course, I would be delighted to. First and foremost, in terms of an immediate response, I have already quoted my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. I would be happy, as I always am, to meet with the Council of Europe and its members in advance of their next meeting to ensure that they are fully equipped with the lines they need about our defence of the ECHR and our membership of the Council of Europe.

Viscount Waverley: My Lords, the United Kingdom is a member of the UN Human Rights Council. Does the Minister anticipate bringing these matters before the council? Why, in his view, do countries  continue with the death penalty, and does it in any way act as a deterrent against the very acts these people are being murdered for in any case?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, I assure the noble Viscount that we consistently bring up the issue of the death penalty. Indeed, as he may be aware, in the universal periodic review that takes place in respect of each country, including the United Kingdom, we look very carefully at what the issues are and which ones we should raise, and we hold countries accountable. Many countries with perhaps quite challenging human rights records aspire to be members of the Human Rights Council. When you are there, you need to stand up for its values and standards.

Medical Devices and Equipment
 - Question

Lord Hacking: To ask His Majesty’s Government what discussions have been held between the Department of Health and Social Care, NHS Supply Chain, and healthcare manufacturers regarding the impact of costs pressures on the supply of medical devices and equipment.

Lord Hacking: My Lords, we are back to medical matters. I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Lord Evans of Rainow: My Lords, the department and NHS Supply Chain hold regular discussions with industry. There is an established process for reviewing price increase requests, which is set out in the terms of agreement of contracts. Each request is evaluated on a case-by-case basis. This Government are committed to working with healthcare manufacturers to secure value for money for taxpayers and support patients and care providers in accessing the products that they need.

Lord Hacking: My Lords, I think I detect that the Government acknowledge the importance of the provision of healthcare products to both the NHS and its patients. I refer in particular to operated medical beds and pressure mattresses, going all the way down the line to such matters as catheters and colostomy equipment—I mention those because your Lordships may be more familiar with that area.
I have two questions. Do the Government recognise that providers of healthcare products, mostly fixed-price products, have faced and are facing colossal increased costs, to the point that there is a real prospect that some of them will no longer be able to provide their healthcare products to the National Health Service? Do the Government recognise the importance of providers of healthcare products to the National Health Service?

Lord Evans of Rainow: I thank the noble Lord for his important question and pay tribute to his expertise in such matters. This Government recognise the importance of the provision of healthcare products  to the NHS and its patients. In February, the Government published their first ever medtech strategy. Supply conditions are proactively monitored and officials engage extensively with industry to identify threats to the supply of medical equipment. The department works closely with NHS England and the NHS to minimise the impact of potential supply disruptions on patient care. The department has agreed annual increases on Part IX drug tariff products used in primary care, and an exceptional price increase request mechanism exists.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, on  31 January, the Minister’s noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Markham, told me in a Written Answer that we still have 118 million items of PPE stored in the People’s Republic of China at a cost of £260,000 every single day. That is a massive cost to the NHS, both in opportunity cost and the cost to British taxpayers. The noble Lord said that the Government would act rapidly to end this. Can the Minister tell us whether we now have any items of PPE left in the People’s Republic of China and what the total cost to the British taxpayer has been?

Lord Evans of Rainow: My Lords, the People’s Republic of China is not part of the Question and remit I have here, but I will certainly pass the noble Lord’s question on to my noble friend Lord Markham.

Lord Allan of Hallam: My Lords, the Minister may be aware of research that we have carried out showing that many hospitals are using outdated equipment, including X-ray machines that are more than 20 years old. What are the Government doing to ensure that NHS England’s advice to replace equipment such as scanners and X-ray machines every 10 years is being followed? What are they doing to make sure that cost pressures do not become another reason to delay further the replacement of this essential equipment?

Lord Evans of Rainow: I am grateful for the noble Lord’s question. As somebody who used to deal in such equipment, I totally agree with him that you should always have the latest, most up-to-date equipment. Twenty years sounds like an awfully long time in technological development terms, so I take on board exactly what the noble Lord says.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, further to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, the Question talks about
“the impact of costs pressures on the supply of medical devices and equipment.”
Therefore, the fact that we are paying for the storage of PPE that cannot be used is relevant; a Question on this was answered some time ago. Would my noble friend the Minister be good enough to reply in writing and set out the current position of these astronomical costs?

Lord Evans of Rainow: I am most grateful to my noble friend for that question. I hear it loud and clear and will feed it back to the Minister, my noble friend Lord Markham.

Lord Winston: My Lords, one important set of healthcare products is the media which are used for embryo culture. They are widely used in in vitro fertilisation by different manufacturers, having been obtained commercially. Can the Government assure us that they are notified of the secret ingredients in these media? What control is made over those ingredients, which may have a detrimental effect, before they are used in human embryos?

Lord Evans of Rainow: The noble Lord raises a very important point. I will certainly ensure that the department hears it, and I will feed back to him.

Lord Lansley: My noble friend will recall that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency in this country was the leading regulatory agency for the approval of new medical devices, including 40% of the most significant such medical devices. What benefits for the authorisation of medical devices might stem from the announcement in the Budget last week of additional resources for the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency?

Lord Evans of Rainow: I thank my noble friend for his question. The Government’s medtech strategy, published in February, will support medical device manufacturers by recognising the importance of domestic production to support resilience and identify practical support. The good news that was articulated in the Budget last week can only add to that.

Baroness Merron: My Lords, rising cost pressures affect not only the supply of medical devices and equipment; spiralling costs are also threatening the supply of drugs in the UK, particularly generic medicines. What assessment have the Government made of how many drug companies they expect to exit this market altogether due to lack of profitability? What assessment have they made of the impact on patient care and NHS finances if the NHS has to pay an increasing amount for a smaller range of drug options?

Lord Evans of Rainow: When agreeing contracts with healthcare manufacturers that stipulate fixed pricing the manufacturers have full opportunity to account for the inflationary pressures of their tenders. NHS Supply Chain has established processes, where suppliers can apply for price increases due to exceptional circumstances. It has accepted price increases where they were justifiable, and it continues to consider such requests.

Lord Porter of Spalding: My noble friend spoke earlier about the need to replace equipment in hospitals with the latest, most up-to-date equipment. Can he assure the House that, if it is serviceable, the redundant equipment will be put to good use? I am thinking particularly of Ukraine, where hospitals and kit have been blown to bits. We could at least send them stuff that we consider to be surplus.

Lord Evans of Rainow: My noble friend raises a very good point. Notwithstanding wanting to have the very latest state-of-the-art equipment in our hospitals,  the surplus could still be workable and could be used elsewhere in the world, including in Ukraine. I will feed that back.

Baroness D'Souza: My Lords, it is reliably estimated that, in 30 years, the cost of the NHS will match 100% of GDP in this country. Can the Minister say something about what long-term strategic plans are being undertaken given the eventuality of the NHS simply running out of money and the country running out of money at the same time?

Lord Evans of Rainow: The noble Baroness raises an important point. As it is outside the Question and the remit I have here, I cannot give her a robust enough answer, I fear, so I will write to her.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, surely at the heart of this Question—and it relates to China—is that what we learned during the pandemic is that we were overreliant on supplies from China. The Government say that they wish to encourage alternative sources of supply, including from UK companies. However, we hear from those companies that the cost pressure on them means that they cannot invest sufficiently to produce alternative sources of supply. What is the Government’s approach to ensuring that we are not dependent on China in the way that left us so exposed during the pandemic?

Lord Evans of Rainow: The noble Lord raises an important point. Unfortunately, we were far more reliant on China, not just in the NHS but elsewhere in our economy. However, contracts and framework agreements fixed prices to provide budgetary certainty for the NHS and to avoid the need for frequent price reviews or constant retendering, which are inefficient for the NHS and for suppliers. When I reflect on my business career, I know from that context that the NHS is a very good customer, providing security on payment for goods and services, working under equitable terms and conditions of contract, and being prepared to encourage the concerns of suppliers facing exceptional pressures. It is a very good customer.

Passports: Strike Action and Voter ID
 - Private Notice Question

Lord Rennard: Asked by Lord Rennard
To ask His Majesty’s Government (1) what assessment they have made of the effect of strike action in April on passport applications and (2) what steps they will take to ensure that those with delayed applications will not be prevented from voting in elections on 4 May.

Lord Murray of Blidworth: My Lords, His Majesty’s Passport Office is working to manage the impact of the strike action. We have comprehensive contingency plans. There are currently no plans to change the published processing times for passports in response to the proposed strike action.
A passport is only one form of identification which is acceptable for voting purposes. The full list can be found on the government website. The public do not need a passport to be able to vote. This strike action should not have any impact on people being able to vote in May.

Lord Rennard: The current 10-week delay in passport applications is frustrating for travellers. The five-week strike will cause further problems. It will also reduce the number of people who have one of the specified forms of photo ID to let them vote if they have elections on 4 May. The uptake of local authority voter ID cards has been pathetic. During debates on the then Elections Bill, Ministers referred frequently to the Post Office’s ID requirements for collecting a parcel. Will the Government now consider allowing the forms of ID that are accepted by the Post Office, including bank cards or utility bills, to be used for voting, or are they really trying to suppress the vote?

Lord Murray of Blidworth: The noble Lord asked two questions. First, in relation to the Passport Office, the department remains confident that the 10-week service standard for the return of passports will continue to be met. As the Minister with superintendence of the Passport Office, I have been very proud of the work that it and its excellent staff have done in recovering from the massive surge in applications which followed the Covid pandemic. The Passport Office remains fully resourced, following a significant increase of more than 1,200 staff between April 2021 and last summer. Last week, 99.6% of standard UK passport applications were processed within 10 weeks. More than 2.2 million applications have been processed in 2023.
I turn to the issue in relation to voting. As I have already said, a passport is only one form of ID which is acceptable for voting purposes. Expired forms of identification will be accepted, as long as the photograph is a good enough likeness. We estimate that around 80% of the eligible voting population hold a valid UK passport. This increases to around 85% when those whose passport has recently expired are included. On the basis that such a high proportion of voters hold a valid or recently expired passport, we do not plan to change our processing times. As the noble Lord has observed, anyone eligible to vote who does not have an acceptable form of photographic identification can apply for a free voter authority certificate.

Baroness Meacher: My Lords, we know that voter ID fraud among those who vote at polling stations is absolutely minimal. It is extremely likely that, even if people have photo ID, they will not remember to take it to the polling station when they go to vote. There will therefore be a considerable number of people who do not vote in elections if the Government stick to their requirement that everyone turns up at the polling station with photo ID. Will the Government therefore withdraw their photo ID requirement for people voting at polling stations?

Lord Murray of Blidworth: I am afraid I simply do not agree with the noble Baroness. This Parliament has passed an Act to require people to present voter identification and that is what will happen.

Baroness Berridge: There is a simple failsafe. It is really important that people can vote and, having sent off their passport, they might not think that they will need it. But every time the Passport Office receives an application, it sends an email that says, “We’ve safely got your passport”. Attached to that email could be a little notification saying, “If you’re relying on this as your ID for voting, please make sure that you have one of these other forms”—or it could signpost them to the free voter certificate, which would kitchen-sink this so they can vote.

Lord Murray of Blidworth: I thank my noble friend for that suggestion. Great efforts are made to advertise the availability of the voter authority certificate. Anyone concerned that a document that they intend to use will not be available by polling day may also apply to appoint a proxy up to 5 pm on polling day itself—so considerable steps have been taken to address my noble friend’s point.

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, has come up with a very practical solution to this potential problem. Can the noble Lord undertake to the House and the noble Baroness that he will look at her suggestion and come up with a more considered answer?

Lord Murray of Blidworth: I can certainly indicate that careful consideration is given to these issues. As always, we will consider all the recommendations and advice given to this House, including from my noble friend.

Lord Lexden: My Lords, should we remind ourselves that photographic evidence has been required at polling stations in Northern Ireland for many years and that the system there has worked extremely well?

Lord Murray of Blidworth: I thank my noble friend, who is of course correct that paper identification has been required at polling stations in Northern Ireland since it was introduced in 1985, and photo identification since 2003, when it was introduced by the last Labour Government. It has proven to be highly effective at stopping fraud and preventing the crime of stealing someone’s vote.

Viscount Waverley: My Lords, I will add to the last question and publicly commend the Passport Office—or certainly one unit within it, the international section—for providing an absolutely exemplary service. Would the Minister care to add to my positive remarks?

Lord Murray of Blidworth: I am incredibly grateful to the noble Viscount for his comment, which I will pass on. I am always very impressed by the Passport Office staff. Their work to turn around delivery times has been exemplary across the Civil Service, and it is most regrettable that the action taken by the PCS will imperil this.

Baroness Pinnock: My Lords, this delay in passport applications will undoubtedly lead to some people not having the relevant voter ID available to them on the day in order to vote. Another uncertainty is being put in front of potential voters. The Minister has been saying that people can apply for local authority voter identification, so I will give him some figures to show how minimal that is. In my council area of Kirklees—I have relevant interests—there are an estimated 4,000 voters who will need voter ID from the local authority. There have been 278 applications to date, many of which have been returned for lack of a good-quality photo. What are the Government going to do to make sure that every voter who turns up on 4 May can cast their vote?

Lord Murray of Blidworth: I believe that I have already answered that question a number of times in the course of proceedings in this House and  I will not repeat it again.

Lord McLoughlin: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that it is not only passports that are registered as a document of note for voting? Many documents other than passports are approved. Would he care to run through them?

Lord Murray of Blidworth: I thank my noble friend; he is indeed correct. Some 20 forms of identity document would suffice including: a passport—needless to say—issued by the UK, any of the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man, any British Overseas Territory, an EEA state or Commonwealth country; a national identity card issued by an EEA state; a driving licence; a blue badge; an older person’s or disabled person’s bus pass; an Oyster 60+ card funded by the Government of the United Kingdom; a Freedom Pass; a Scottish national entitlement card; a Welsh concessionary travel card for those aged 60 and over or disabled people; a senior, registered blind, blind person’s, war disablement, 60+ or half-fare SmartPass issued in Northern Ireland; or an identity card bearing a proof of age standard.  I do not think I need to carry on.

Lord Scriven: My Lords, could the Minister say why the young person’s bus pass and railcard was not on there?

Lord Murray of Blidworth: Plainly, that was an issue that the noble Lord should have raised—and no doubt did raise—during the debate on the Elections Bill. It is quite a long way from the topic of this Question, which is about the strikes by the PCS.

Lord Kamall: Can my noble friend the Minister, having gone through that extensive list, say whether the department has made any estimate of how many people do not have any of the forms of documentation that he listed?

Lord Murray of Blidworth: Well, of course, elections fall within the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities rather than the Home  Office, but I am delighted to make that inquiry and write to him, and deposit the answer in the Library of the House.

Lord Rennard: My Lords, following the question from the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, is the Minister aware of the different political culture in Northern Ireland, and the fact that in the 1983 general election there were clear justifications for the introduction of some form of ID? There has been no such justification in Great Britain. The returning officer for Northern Ireland said that, after the introduction, it took at least 10 years for turnout levels to return to their previous levels, as a result of the introduction of ID. The Minister read a list; as a canvasser, I would not be able to read out that list to everyone on the doorstep—but the Post Office list is a very good list and it would extend the right to vote to many more people.

Lord Murray of Blidworth: I am afraid that I do not accept that there is no need for the voter identification provisions. In any event, as I say, those matters have been approved by the other place and by this House—so that, I am afraid, is that.

Baroness Hussein-Ece: My Lords, can I ask the Minister what he is doing, what the Government think and what assessment they have made about postal votes, because they are not monitored in the same way and ID does not have to be produced in the same way? Voter fraud instances have been higher in postal votes than they ever have for people voting  in person.

Lord Murray of Blidworth: I am afraid that this question, too, is an awfully long way from the Private Notice Question in relation to the action taken in the Passport Office. As to forms of identity for voting in person at polling stations, if the noble Baroness wishes to put a Question about postal voting, she can put it to the relevant Minister in DLUHC.

Lord Vaux of Harrowden: My Lords, like many in this House, I am registered to vote in two places. I have had no information from either local authority about the need for voter ID yet. It is only a number of weeks before the election; at what point are people going to be informed by local authorities of both the need for voter ID and the ability to apply for a local authority voting card?

Lord Murray of Blidworth: The noble Lord is perhaps fortunate in that I received notice last week, together with my council tax bill for the coming year.  I understand that that is fairly wide practice.

Lord Dholakia: Is the Minister prepared to instruct those conducting elections to monitor those people who have been refused the right to vote, and publish those figures?

Lord Murray of Blidworth: As I say, that is not a Home Office issue, so I am afraid that the answer is no: I have not given that instruction. No doubt the noble Lord can make inquiries of the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities.

Viscount Waverley: European citizens are, I guess, allowed to vote in these circumstances, and they only have European documents. The Government may wish for these to be added to that already extensive list.

Lord Murray of Blidworth: Yes, indeed; the noble Viscount is right. EU and EEA passports and identity cards are valid.

Baroness Hussein-Ece: The noble Lord asked me to write to him because my question was not apparently pertinent to the Question on the Order Paper. Could he confirm that he speaks for the Government?

Lord Murray of Blidworth: Of course.

Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill
 - First Reading

The Bill was brought from the Commons, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Child Support (Enforcement) Bill
 - First Reading

The Bill was brought from the Commons, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Powers of Attorney Bill
 - First Reading

The Bill was brought from the Commons, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Animals (Low-Welfare Activities Abroad) Bill
 - First Reading

The Bill was brought from the Commons, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Higher-Risk Buildings (Key Building Information etc.) (England) Regulations 2023
 - Motion to Approve

Baroness Scott of Bybrook: Moved by Baroness Scott of Bybrook
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 23 January be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 14 March.
Motion agreed.

Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill
 - Third Reading

Lord Johnson of Lainston: My Lords, it is with deep regret that the UK Government have been unable to secure legislative consent for this Bill from the Scottish Parliament and the Senedd. We have also not been able to secure a legislative consent Motion from the Northern Ireland Assembly, given the lack of a functioning Executive. This is disappointing, given that the same approach was followed in the Trade Act 2021, for which the Scottish and Welsh Governments did recommend consent.
The Government have sought to agree compromises with the devolved Administrations. However, despite the best efforts of officials and Ministers, we have not been able to reach an agreement with the Scottish and Welsh Governments. I remind noble Lords again that during the passage of the Bill and the deals it implements, the Government have undertaken extensive engagement with the devolved Administrations, including ministerial meetings, official-level meetings and meetings of ministerial fora, and there were 25 chief negotiator calls with the DAs regarding the Australia free trade agreement alone. In addition, as I have made clear in each debate on the Bill, I reaffirm the UK Government’s commitment to consult the devolved Administrations before exercising the concurrent power in the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Lennie: My Lords, I thank the Minister for taking through the Bill, which is a first for both the Minister and the country—our first trade deal signed following our exit from the European Union. The Minister’s enthusiasm for the Bill was always evident throughout its passage. We now have a trade arrangement with Australia and New Zealand. We will wait to see the overall and specific effects, particularly upon our agriculture sector. While the overall impact is predicted to be very limited, a factor caused by the huge distance between Australia and New Zealand and the UK, there were some specific concerns about certain Australian farming methods and the effect on small hill farmers in the UK. I suspect that these account largely for the failure to get agreement from the Scottish and Welsh Governments.
My thanks go again to the Minister and his team of advisers for their openness and, on this side, to Milton Brown, who again has shown good judgment in facilitating the progress of the Bill.

Motion

Lord Johnson of Lainston: Moved by Lord Johnson of Lainston
That the Bill do now pass.

Lord Johnson of Lainston: My Lords, it has been a pleasure to take my first Bill through your Lordships’ House. I thank noble Lords for the constructive approach that has been evident throughout the Bill’s passage. We have had robust discussions and debates on the Bill. Likewise, I have had the privilege in recent weeks of engaging with Peers outside the Chamber, and I have benefited from those conversations, which have been in-depth and valuable. The experience, diligence and practical knowledge of noble Lords have challenged and tested the strength of the Bill and its underlying trade deals. I am sure noble Lords will agree that this provides reassurance to the public on the quality of our democratic processes, our accountability and the constructive challenge function of your Lordships’ House. It remains for me only to give a few specific thanks to noble Lords and others before we complete our consideration of the Bill.
First, I thank the Opposition spokespersons, the noble Lords, Lord Lennie and Lord Purvis of Tweed, for the constructive way that they have continued to approach the scrutiny of the Bill—as well as the additional work outside in engaging with our various high commissioners, which I personally appreciated very much.
I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for the valuable conversations that we have shared on this legislation and her continued championing of our important agricultural sector. I hope that she has been reassured throughout the Bill’s passage through this House of the Government’s commitment to maintaining our high food standards and safeguarding measures for this sector and UK farmers within both deals. It was due to the scrutiny of my noble friend Lady McIntosh and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, that we identified the minor drafting error in Clause 2(1)(a), which has subsequently been corrected.
I thank my noble friend Lord Lansley, whose knowledge, frankly, makes my job all the easier as he makes the points in my speech before I get the chance to do so. It is absolutely right that I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and all the members of the IAC for their considered input.
This has been very much a team effort. Behind the scenes, the extraordinary Bill team have put in an unbelievable amount of effort. My thanks go to: James Copeland, Thomas Bingham, Donald Selmani, Jack Collins, Alex Garcia-Pineiro and Catherine Ajani. I also thank my private secretary Sehar Shaheryar and other officials who make up my private office, led by Simon Moore.
Finally, I thank the parliamentary staff, the doorkeepers and the clerks for their professionalism and continued support and to your Lordships’ House.
The Bill provides a power to give effect to our procurement commitments within these agreements, improving three areas of our existing procurement legislation in the UK. We will see benefits to our public services and companies trading in these partner countries—ultimately, unlocking billions in government contracts in a more secure way than ever before.
In conclusion, the Bill will achieve the essence of our post-Brexit vision of Britain. Some noble Lords have questioned the presence of the Government’s trade agenda during the Bill’s passage. In response  I say: here it is. These deals guarantee a global interconnectedness of trade deals, with the United Kingdom at the very heart of these new routes, meaning new opportunities for our businesses and citizens. This will result in new markets for our goods and services and new ways to travel and share our cultures. To our friends, trading partners, clients, suppliers, brothers and cousins in Australia and New Zealand, I say, “Hold tight! The UK is coming.” I reiterate my thanks one final time and, with that, I beg to move.

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville: My Lords, I apologise on behalf of my noble friend Lord Purvis, who is, unfortunately, unable to be here this afternoon. We thank the Minister for his comments, as well as his patience and expertise during the passage of this Bill. We thank the Bill team for their help and support, as well as the Labour Front Benches and Cross Benches. We also thank Elizabeth Plummer in the Liberal Democrat Whips’ Office, without whose help I do not think that my noble friend Lord Purvis and I would have been where we are today. We support the passage of the Bill and thank the Minister for his help.

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on steering his first Bill successfully through the House—my congratulations go too to the whole Bill team. I am grateful to him for the time he took at every stage to talk me through.  He knows of my disappointment that the Scottish Government have withheld their consent, and that this is not the deal that the British farmers would have hoped for; but we live to fight another day and I look forward to future trade Bills coming through.

Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I know that my noble friend Lord Kerr would have loved to be here. I am speaking on behalf of the Cross Benches. I was a member of the IAC until January; the Minister will remember that we had some animated conversations when he first came on the scene. He has kindly sent me a handwritten letter since then. I was sorry to miss the debate last week on agriculture but I welcome the assurances that he gave then. I am speaking now only to congratulate the Minister on taking this enabling Bill through to the end. I am glad that he has obviously enjoyed the exercise. He is not going to be one of those uncomfortable Ministers on the Front Bench, if I can put it that way.
I remind the Minister of one thing that we discussed: the need for HMG to develop a proper trade policy that explains to people what the UK stands for; that is what he was talking about just now. By this I do not mean a checklist but a framework for FTAs in which there is more mutual understanding, in advance, of the issues involved. This does not breach secrecy rules but helps the process of consultation with stakeholders—and there are many stakeholders.
We said in our report that the FTA was politically significant because it offered an insight into the Government’s vision for trade in the absence of a policy. Australia and New Zealand was a relatively easy start in this as we have so many common values and standards with them, but they are not typical of the CPTPP, which is coming quite soon and offers much wider challenges. All I ask is that the Minister and the department continue the dialogue with the IAC that was already started with the previous Secretary of State; as the Minister knows, it is an ongoing process, and perhaps he could confirm that in his reply.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I offer my congratulations to the Minister for skilfully conducting the debates on this important Bill, which I think will lead to much greater things in our future. I want to put before him three issues, almost housekeeping issues, that have arisen during the handling of the legislation, one of which has just been mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich.
I declare an interest as a member of the International Agreements Committee, where the issue of trade policy and how specific or general it should be has been a matter of lively discussion. That is of course relevant to everything that we have been talking about.
I ask the Minister to keep the three points that I want to comment on in mind when we enter into future discussions on these sorts of areas in FTAs,  of which there are going to be plenty more. First,  the CRaG system—the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010—has come under a bit of strain, and the question has arisen as to whether, when the other place resolves that something should not be ratified, the 21 days that then follow are enough to get the appropriate debates organised, or whether in fact the Government are not obliged to have a debate and maybe it does not fit into parliamentary time and the net effect can be that there is no debate at all. Perhaps that is an area that needs looking at again.
Secondly, the whole of the CRaG system depends on the assiduity, energy and powers of the committees. The resources on the clerical and research side of many committees, including all the ones that I have served on for 30 years, have been second to none, and have been particularly superb here in the House of Lords itself—but are they enough, given the size and number of the treaties that are coming through? We are not even talking about the EU treaties that are handled by the International Trade Committee; we are talking about thousands and thousands of treaties and agreements, let alone instruments, pouring through day by day. Today’s giant Executive generates a continuous  flow, a cascade, of these things. Do the committees have the resources and underpinning that committees in similar parliamentary systems to ours, here in Europe and elsewhere, seem to have? Should there have been harder thinking about whether, in a modern society with a modern Parliament trying to hold the Executive to account, the resources of committees are the key—the physical resources, clerical resources, research resources and back-up, and the power to summon and so on. These are all matters of lively discussion that have arisen in this area.
My third point is a bit of a puzzle, but we are going to hear a lot more about it: the question of consent from the devolved Administrations. I need to have one thing clarified for me. I thought foreign policy was a reserved matter under the devolution legislation that we passed through both Houses. When the Holyrood Parliament refuses consent, I want to know under what powers it is doing that. As the Minister has indicated, that does not actually stop a Bill proceeding and being enacted, but it is a rather curious situation when, if the devolved Administrations have views on this, they can just sit there and not provide consent. Is it because they think Scotland should have some separate relationship with Australia and New Zealand—I cannot believe that is the case—or is it simply some inner procedural matter where they do not feel there has been adequate consultation? Either way, it is a very uncomfortable situation to encounter. My noble friend has handled it excellently, but these things sit there and require some hard thought if future Bills of this kind, of which there will be many, can be conducted in a reasonable way where Parliament feels that it really is getting a grip on what is happening.

Lord Johnson of Lainston: I greatly appreciate noble Lords’ comments. I think I was so keen to get this Bill through that I slightly jumped the gun. I apologise to those noble Lords who were waiting  to speak. I greatly appreciate the personal comments towards my own enthusiasm. I have hugely enjoyed the process of working with so many noble Lords in the first of what I hope will be a series of very exciting, exhilarating and profitable trade deals for the whole of the UK.
I have always been very specific, as have the Government, that this is a journey. We are very keen to hear how we can engage better. It is absolutely in the interests of the Government and these trade deals that there is a broad consensus around their power and effect to elevate our economy to new heights; otherwise, we will not be able to broadcast the ramifications and specifics of the trade deals to the country and people will not take advantage of them. Personally, I am continuing to engage at all possible points.
I am delighted to answer a few of the questions. In terms of the committee resourcing, I will certainly take that away. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for raising that. The IAC under the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has done a very good job. A number of noble Lords have spoken to that today and during the debate. It is certainly worth making sure we have the resources in this House to ensure we are scrutinising according to the appropriate CRaG process.
The noble Lord touched on the consent issues. They have clearly been an important feature of the debates around these trade deals. It does not necessarily look like we have resolved them for future trade deals. However, as the noble Lord rightly said, these are reserved powers. If you consult your Walter Bagehot, as I did over the weekend, he makes it very clear and is absolutely right that the Executive should be making treaties and be given the freedom of rein to implement them across the entire United Kingdom.
Having said that, we have made huge efforts to consult and engage with the devolved nations. I personally made extra efforts, which I would not describe as effort at all but part of a necessary process of good governance and communication, to ensure that devolved nations felt that they had a way in to this process. It is absolutely confirmed that our negotiators spend a great deal of time with officials from all parts of the United Kingdom to make sure that their views are fed in. This reflects on the sort of trade we are trying to do in terms of the specific industries of these nations. We are one United Kingdom, and our power in negotiating global trade deals comes from that fact. It would be a great mistake to try to abrogate that for any reason. Having said that, consultation and communication are paramount to us, and I personally commit to them.

Lord Lansley: Will my noble friend confirm that the Bill is about incorporating into domestic legislation the procurement provisions and chapters of the treaty? Although treaty making may be a reserved power, the implementation of the procurement-related legislation reflects directly on devolved matters. That is why consent should have been provided by the devolved Administrations.

Lord Johnson of Lainston: I thank my noble friend for that comment. I do not believe that is necessarily the case, in the sense that this is a procurement Bill relating to a trade deal, so it is right that concurrent powers can be initiated. I believe that is the case. That is certainly how we have operated on the premise of this Bill.
We wanted to gain consent because that is good practice, but, as I say, we focused on consultation and communication, which has achieved the same goal. The whole point of this Bill and the trade deal it underpins is that it will lead to greater trade, more commerce and economic activity and greater wealth creation for the entire UK, which we should celebrate.
If I may come to a conclusion, I thank noble Lords for their extremely helpful scrutiny. I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, mentioned. It proves the power and point of this Chamber. Any of the body politic who discuss significant revision of the powers of this Chamber should think very carefully about the actions taken on this Bill. Through the scrutiny of this House and the participation of individual Members, we have been able to draft a more effective Bill and draft it correctly, for which I am extremely grateful. I am very excited about the opportunities that the Australia and New Zealand trade deal will give us, our citizens and this nation. With that, I beg to move.
Bill passed and returned to the Commons with an amendment.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill
 - Committee (6th Day)

Relevant documents: 24th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee, 12th Report from the Constitution Committee

Amendment 165

Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist: Moved by Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
165: After Clause 71, insert the following new Clause—“Disposal of landIn section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972 (disposal of land by principal councils), after subsection (2B) insert—“(2C) Police and crime commissioners and the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime are to be treated as principal councils for the purposes of this section.””Member's explanatory statementThis amendment amends section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972 to confer a power on police and crime commissioners and the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime to dispose of land held by them in any manner they wish. This power is subject to the requirement of Secretary of State consent if the disposal is made for less than best consideration.

Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist: My Lords, government Amendment 165 and the consequential Amendments 508 and 509 seek to give police and crime commissioners, including mayors who exercise these functions, and the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime the same powers to dispose of surplus land as local authorities.
The Government’s general principle is that public bodies should dispose of surplus land at the best possible price reasonably obtainable. However, we recognise that selling land at less than best consideration can sometimes deliver wider public benefits, which is why there is a long-standing framework under Section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972 for enabling local authorities to dispose of their land for less than best consideration. Under this framework, the Secretary of State’s consent is required, but there is a general direction granting consent if the undervalue is below £2 million.
Prior to 2011 and the creation of police and crime commissioners, police authorities were covered by Section 123, but that is no longer the case. While police and crime commissioners now have broad powers  to dispose of land as they see fit, there is no  specific provision relating to disposal at less than best consideration. This perceived gap in police bodies’ powers was raised in the other place, and I know that this matter concerns the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. Having now explored the issue further with the Home Office, the Government agree that police and crime commissioners should have the same disposal powers as local authorities. Therefore, this amendment extends the scope of Section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972 to cover these elected police bodies.
These amendments will give police and crime commissioners greater certainty that they can dispose of land at less than best consideration where doing so will deliver wider public benefits. It will further empower   police and crime commissioners to act in the interests of their local communities. The associated consent framework—with consent to be given by the Home Secretary in the case of police and crime commissioners —will increase transparency and public accountability.
For the reasons I have outlined, I hope that these amendments are welcome and that noble Lords will support them.

Baroness Pinnock: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the government amendment, which concedes a principle of public bodies—the police—being able to use less than best consideration for land no longer needed. I am unashamedly seeking to extend that, as a result of the MP for Twickenham, my honourable friend Munira Wilson, introducing in the other place the idea of enabling public bodies to dispose of land for less than best consideration. That was already available in a limited form but the idea here is that it is out of date because of the change in land valuations—that is what the Minister said.
There are two reasons for changing this. The first is for reasons of inflation in land prices. It is hard to arrive at a conservative estimate—conservative with a small “c”—of inflation in land prices between 2003 and 2023, given that an accurate analysis of the true level of inflation is difficult to ascertain. Secondly, it may be more helpful to refer to increasing or uprating in line with inflation, rather than referring to a concrete figure. For example, according to the UK house price index, average house prices across England have risen by 160% since 2003. Research by Savills suggests that urban land prices in the UK are still below their peak in 2008 and that greenfield land prices have only recently returned to that level. The point is that inflation in land prices is not necessarily the best or most accurate way of making these judgments.
The other way of doing it is by percentage difference in value. The Government’s own land value estimates for 2019 reveal that while the average price of a hectare of land for housing in London was £35.5 million, in the north-east it was just £1.1 million. There is a huge percentage difference and cash difference in land values across the country. What this is attempting to do is to create a fairer way of making these judgments about best consideration, as set out in Amendment 174. That is what we are trying to do.
I accept that the Minister and the Government have agreed that this should be extended to local police and crime commissioners, which is very positive. Our amendment seeks to extend it to all public bodies, for the reasons that I have explained. Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, is not able to be here today. He is a signatory of Amendment 174 and has asked me to say what he would have liked to say, if the Committee agrees.
The poorest communities generally have the poorest public facilities of all sorts, including access to open spaces. Therefore, it is desirable that public bodies disposing of land do not further impoverish the community or miss opportunities for creating new local facilities because of the rules governing the sale  of land. It is also vital that public bodies work in a more joined-up fashion, considering, for example, how the NHS can support education or social housing and vice versa. The NHS is a national body, and many of its facilities serve wide populations that go far beyond local communities, and it needs to take these wider regional and national health considerations into account when disposing of land. However, it could also be enabled and required to take local community needs into consideration. If the Government do not support this amendment, do they have alternative proposals which would ensure that the NHS takes into consideration local community needs, not just those relating to health, when disposing of land?
In conclusion, there has been a great deal of movement on the idea of changing best consideration to enable public land to be sold for community benefit. The Government have conceded that for police land. This amendment would extend it to other public land and has the support of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, who obviously has considerable experience and expertise in the National Health Service. He considers that it would be a very positive change to enable the National Health Service to be able to dispose of land no longer needed for public good. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, I support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, to which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford has added her name. She regrets that she is unable to be in her place today; I wish to make some points that undoubtedly she would have contributed had she been here.
As already indicated by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, the Government’s tabled Amendment 165 is very welcome. The review of Section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972, and the correction of the omission of the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime—and of police and crime commissioners generally—are necessary and positive steps. However, there remain ways in which the general disposal consent 2003 could be improved to better allow public bodies to dispose of assets for less than market value for social, economic or environmental benefit. We believe that such measures would be very much in line with the Bill’s desired outcome: levelling up communities across the country.
Noble Lords will be well aware of the significant variation in land value across the nation’s regions. The introduction of a percentage value discount would help ensure that local authorities, no matter where they are in the country, could offer the same level of discretion when selling sites for community good. I hope that the Minister will therefore accept the proposal from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for an adjacent percentage value to take into account varying land prices in different regions.
I also echo calls for the Minister to confirm today that the Government commit to launching a consultation on a new directive to update the current consent order on the disposal of public land. I am aware that Munira Wilson MP, who has been active in these matters in the other place, has received a letter from the new Housing and Planning Minister in which Mrs Maclean confirmed that the Government will take forward a consultation  on a new direction with higher thresholds after the passage of the Bill. Is the Minister able to reiterate this commitment on the Floor of the House?
I also hope the Minister will accept the call by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for a new disposal consent order increasing the cash value amount in line with inflation in land prices. In her letter to Munira Wilson MP, the Housing and Planning Minister recognised that the current threshold of £2 million was provided in 2003 and that land values have increased over the last two decades. Amendment 174 would increase the cash value amount that public authorities can give a discount on to £3 million. It should be noted that this is in fact a conservative estimate of the inflation in land prices over the past 20 years.
To conclude, I repeat my welcome for the government Amendment 165 and urge the Minister to reiterate the Government’s commitment to consult on a new directive, create such a directive and accept Amendment 174’s provisions for an adjacent percentage value. I hope that we can continue in this spirit of co-operation truly to level up our country.

Lord Best: My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 312A in this group, which would insert a new clause with the heading:
“Duty to optimise the use of public land”.
As this implies, the amendment attempts to ensure that the precious asset of land owned by public bodies is put to “optimal use”. The amendment tries to do two things. First, it would place a duty on local authorities to have a land use management plan for sites in their ownership to ensure that developments are brought forward for the public good. Secondly, since the duty to optimise the use of public land would very often be exercised by disposal of the land to others, the amendment also seeks to define the meaning of the phrase “best consideration reasonably obtainable”, which governs sale of publicly owned land at present.
Earlier amendments in this group would extend  the current disposal regime to cover police and crime commissioners, the NHS, importantly, and all other public bodies. This amendment seeks to resolve long-standing complexities and arguments over the treatment of landholdings by public bodies. I pay tribute to the land economist Stephen Hill, who has studied this question for many years, for his preparation of the amendment. He has been aided by Keith Jenkins, the property lawyer, alongside distinguished real estate experts, academics and leading practitioners who all have my thanks for their work on this subject.
An essential feature of the levelling-up agenda is the need to improve the built environment to create better places to live and work. Securing the land for improved conditions—for affordable homes, green spaces, local amenities, et cetera—is the key to this. The amendment’s first objective, therefore, is simply to bring more public land into play. It would do so by requiring local authorities to prepare a land use management plan, demonstrating how use of their land will be optimised.
This approach was advocated by your Lordships’ Land Use in England Committee, chaired by my  noble friend Lord Cameron of Dillington. Several  local authorities are showing the way with land use plans. For example, the West Midlands Combined Authority has set out what is expected of public landowners; its public land charter requires those landowners to
“apply a consistent, joined-up approach to best consideration”
that aims to achieve “sustainable long-term” value for their land. Amendment 312A would spread this good practice everywhere.
However, securing the best economic, social and environmental uses when public land is sold has been constantly thwarted by public bodies’ acceptance of a higher price offered for the land by other bidders for what is often a less than optimal use. We all have stories of hard-pressed providers of public services understandably wanting to secure as much hard cash as they can from disposing of their land assets, even though doing so conflicts with efforts to improve the quality of life for local citizens.
I will use NHS land to illustrate this point. I have been involved in negotiations to acquire a redundant hospital building for an extra care housing development for older people. This use of the old building and surrounding land would lead to substantial annual savings for the NHS and care services, keeping people out of hospital and residential care as well as reducing loneliness and care needs. But the NHS trust was adamant that the sale must be to the highest bidder— in this case, a developer of luxury flats for overseas buyers—irrespective of the benefits to the NHS and care services that our extra care housing project would achieve. Very often, the reason cited by the public body for taking this line is that there is an obligation on it to secure the highest price, which gets equated with the “best consideration reasonably obtainable”. This is likely to mean the land is valued so highly that it prohibits a development that would achieve important social objectives.
Amendment 312A addresses this issue by creating the duty to go for the optimal use of the land, not the highest price offered, defining “optimal use” and interpreting “best consideration” by reference to constraints on the use of the land from predetermined local and national requirements. It spells out that this means fulfilling four imperatives: first, the requirements of the local development plan and the neighbourhood plan, if there is one; secondly, any national development management policies that will follow from the Bill; thirdly, the environmental principles in the Environment Act 2021; and fourthly, any other objectives or requirements determined by the Secretary of State.
In other words, securing the optimal use of publicly owned land must simply but definitively accord with national and local government requirements. The value of the land is thereby constrained and moderated by the need to comply with these legislative and administrative requirements. In this way, the value of the land is captured by the planning system for economic, social and environmental uses.
I believe this redefinition would help colleagues  in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities who have been trying to clarify the best  consideration requirement since their 2018 planning reform consultation. When the Secretary of State appeared before the DLUHC Select Committee to discuss the Bill last June, he said that this was still an outstanding issue. This amendment unlocks that position. I realise that this approach is dependent on the existence of a valid and up-to-date local plan, which we may in future call a local development plan. The amendment’s outcome obviously needs all councils to finalise their plans before it can be made a condition in any sale of publicly owned land for the development to meet local requirements set out in that plan and, where relevant, in a neighbourhood plan. I sincerely hope that other measures in the Bill and in related guidance will ensure that local plans materialise for every council. A plan-led system without a plan goes nowhere.
I will return to the issue of capturing land value with later amendments covering privately owned land. However, this amendment—requiring public bodies to look at their landholdings, determine their optimal use and dispose of their sites on terms that make these optimal uses viable—stands in its own right. It would bring thousands of sites, large and small, into play on terms that make possible all the good things that local communities need. I commend the amendment.

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville: My Lords, I support Amendment 312A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best. I declare my interest as a patron of the Community Land Trust Network, and a vice-president of the LGA. I apologise for not being present at Second Reading.
As always the noble Lord, Lord Best, has fully set out the rationale behind this amendment, which is quite complex. He gave an example of a redundant hospital which could have been used for extra care. When considering disposing of land they own, local authorities and other bodies feel that they have to get the best price possible. This often means that local communities are cut out of the equation, even when they may have excellent plans for a site or building. The inclusion of this proposed new clause introduces the duty to optimise the use of public land, which  is quite different from getting best value or best consideration.
Often, local community land trusts are formed specifically to provide housing in areas which are either unviable for developers or on small and difficult sites. The local community has, however, identified a need for housing that may be of mixed type and tenure. For example, there may be young families wishing to stay in the area and, equally, there may be older people wishing to downsize but there is nothing of the right size in the area; it could also be for single young people wishing for a space of their own. The price of land is expensive and local authorities are obliged to get best value, which means going with the highest bidder, although this may not always meet the needs of the community. If local authorities are permitted to make the optimal use of public land, this opens  up the availability of land for communities to have  the facilities and homes that they need. I will try to explain this by giving an example. If a council has policies in certain areas—such as increasing social housing and achieving net zero—the council could  then say, “How much would it cost somebody to develop homes on this site to achieve net-zero standards? What would the homes sell for or what would the rent be?” If this cost is deducted from the value of the land, you arrive at the correct valuation that will achieve the optimal use for the site.
It may be that a community is looking not for homes but to enter into a community shop run by volunteers. Both small rural shops and pubs have closed at an alarming rate over recent years; communities are now discovering what a valuable asset they have lost in terms of shopping at a convenient local venue and a venue where they could meet for a coffee and a chat. Perhaps a small local school has stood empty for some time, and it could be attractive to a developer. At the same time, it could be the saviour of the community in bringing residents together to create a much-needed facility for use by all ages. Levelling up is surely about the examples that I and others have given.
This is a complex subject but one that the Government are aware of. The Secretary of State received a letter in December 2021 on it and there has been subsequent correspondence with DLUHC. There were over 34 signatories to the original letter and the amendment is supported by various luminaries of the planning and real estate profession, including Yolande Barnes, professor of real estate at UCL, and various chairs and former chairs of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, including members and fellows.
The credentials of what is proposed have strong foundations. The noble Lord, Lord Best, has made a strong and lucid case for this amendment, which will make a real difference to the way in which local authorities, mayoral development corporations, Homes England and others approach the issue of best consideration for land, which should be a great asset to all communities. I strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Best, and other speakers on this group of amendments.

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and to join her in commending the noble Lord, Lord Best, and his expert collaborators on tackling a huge issue for communities up and down the land, but particularly for some of our most disadvantaged communities. It is important that we put this in the context of where we are now. Since  the late 1970s, about half of all public land— 2 million hectares in total—has been sold from public to largely private hands. That means that local government has 40% less landholding than it did four decades ago; the NHS estate is down by 70%.
What we have seen, as we have heard from other speakers in this group, is not just a loss of land—people might or might not have ideological views about that—but a loss of capacity, facilities, access for local people, and the simple destruction of what had been a public resource. I think of one of these that I visited a few years ago on the Isle of Wight, a particularly tragic tale. The Frank James Hospital had been donated as a charity—a beautiful, big piece of land. It was a public facility that over decades—the best part of a century—the public had raised money for and put money into, but was sold 20 years ago to a developer and is still sitting there rotting.
Closer to us here, some noble Lords may know of Caxton Hall, which was a huge centre of historical interest and a place to hold public meetings in the vicinity of Westminster, at one point fairly affordably—something that anyone who has tried to organise one of those will know is a very rare breed indeed these days. Now it is, of course, private flats.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, has hit on something really important here, and I offer to do what I can to work with him if he wishes to take this forward into the next stage of the Bill. We have lost space for political campaigning. We have lost space particularly for our young people—those public spaces were often where young people gathered and where they were not surveilled, overseen, and expected to spend money; they were just a public space for young people to gather. So much of that has been lost. As I think the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, said through the ventriloquism of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, this is very much a levelling-up issue. When you go to the poorer communities around our country, the public spaces have been sold off, but they also do not have even private spaces that you could rent because there is not enough money to support that kind of private space. This is a crucial issue to pick up in the Bill.
I will briefly comment on the Government’s Amendment 165, which broadly concerns the principle of choosing to dispose of land for “less than best” consideration. It is an excellent idea. The example that comes to mind is of a police and crime commissioner deciding to give at very low cost, perhaps even at peppercorn cost, a piece of land that might be used to build a youth centre on—that facility that we have lost so terribly in most parts of the country. That would clearly be a very good thing for a police and crime commissioner to do, directly serving their mandate.
What worries me a little about this is the Secretary of State consent element, which is just one more centralisation. I wonder whether there should not be a range of local and regional bodies having an input, rather than it coming down to Westminster. None the less, I applaud some degree of progress.

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage: My Lords, this has been an interesting debate on a number of important amendments. It is, of course, essential that these new combined county authorities and constituent local authorities should be able to use land in their ownership and negotiate with partners to use land resources to create facilities, regenerate their areas, and make best use of the scarce land resources we have. The other reason this is so important is that making best use of these brownfield and previously developed sites affords the ability to make environmental protections to those parts of the country where we do not wish to see development. That is another reason for doing this. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, also takes into consideration the fact that there may be attempts to frustrate development. That certainly struck a chord with me, as the saga of the development of my town to the west of the A1(M) has dragged on for over 27 years without resolution—but that is enough about my personal pain.
I welcome the Government’s amendment on the issue of there being no specific provision relating to disposal below value. This is a big issue for local authorities whenever we are looking at these things. I think there is a degree of misunderstanding about it in local authorities, where a lot of arguments go on between the legal side and the policy side about how the power of environmental, social and economic improvement works, in conjunction with the audit  side of having to achieve best consideration. I hope that these amendments will help to resolve some of these issues. The ability to empower PCCs to include considerations other than monetary value alongside local authorities is welcome, although I will come on to some of the issues around that in a moment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, rightly pointed to the very steep price rises and the 160% inflation that is currently linked to valuations. The words of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, channelled through the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised the issue of the assets available to more deprived communities and what we do about making sure that we do not exacerbate that rather than using the powers of the Bill to level up. Using the power of land to provide preventive facilities—as in the example the noble Lord, Lord Best, used—which will do long-term good for the community and potentially save long-term revenue funding for the public bodies concerned is a really important way forward for determining how the value of land is determined in the first place. If it is going to provide facilities for that community and save revenue for the public body in the long term, surely that ought to be one of the considerations we can take into account.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester highlighted the outdated nature of the figures currently used. This has been one of the common themes of the data used that we have highlighted throughout the consideration of the Bill. We must get up-to-date data here, otherwise we will end up giving ourselves problems that we should not need to have.
Turning to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, he made a very clear exposition of why the need to be able to make best use of public land—and therefore improve the built environment—is crucial to levelling up, and how the use of public land charters could help. It was interesting to hear that the work of the Select Committee had looked at that closely and determined it.
We cannot blame hard-pressed public bodies, which are so desperate for cash, for sometimes having to go for the option that will give them the most funding when looking at valuations on their land. Of course, the long-term solution to that is to fund public bodies properly in the first place—they would then not have to make those tough decisions—but we are where we are with that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, referred to the high level of public land that has already been lost. We are where we are with it. The amendments in this group seem to me to be a good way of giving some options around how we can take other issues into consideration.
I was grateful for the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, about the involvement of community and local community land trusts. In our debate on this group, we have already spoken about the link between local development plans and, for example, the public land charters proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Best, including how they might work sitting together, incorporating both national and local principles. However, we also have the neighbourhood plans, which are being promoted as part of the levelling-up procedure. Those plans being developed at the local level will also be dependent on the use of public land in some cases to deliver the wishes of that neighbourhood. All that needs to be taken into account.
There is one other item that has not been mentioned in our debate on this group of amendments but is really key: a huge amount of land that belonged to utility companies that were privatised many years ago is also sitting there underused and unable to be used for public use. Perhaps some consideration could be given to that in due course. The land belonging to public bodies other than the council, including police and crime commissioners and the NHS, should be available to deliver the aims of combined county authorities; that certainly seems reasonable, especially where those authorities are members of the CCA and will take part in the discussions around the strategic planning for their area.
Local authorities have such strong requirements on them to achieve best consideration for land sold. I am afraid that case law has shown that, where local authorities seeking the advice of professionally qualified valuers have taken other issues, such as job creation, into account, there is not always a guarantee that that decision will be held in law. So I hope that that sensitive matter can be resolved in the interests of all CCAs and local authorities.
However, generally speaking, the ability to use public land for the benefit of our communities should be right at the heart of levelling up, so I am keen to support the amendments in this group.

Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for having participated in this debate. A lot of interesting subjects have come up, some of which will be discussed in greater depth as we go through the Bill.
Amendment 174 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, seeks to give NHS bodies and police and crime commissioners the same powers as local authorities to dispose of surplus land. Government Amendment 165 already addresses this issue in relation to police and crime commissioners, but NHS bodies are accountable to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and there is a separate disposal regime in place for NHS land that enables disposal at “less than best” consideration where it brings public benefits. We do not therefore consider it necessary for those bodies to be included in Section 123 of the Local Government Act. Equally, general disposal consent is granted by way of a direction issued by the Secretary of State. As such, primary legislation is not required to amend it.
On what the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, might have wished to say, as enunciated by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, I believe that it is broadly in line with what the Government are trying to achieve. In fact, having listened to all the contributions, I think that we all share the same objectives; the Government just do not believe that we need to legislate quite so much in order to achieve them. So, although I appreciate the sentiment behind this amendment, for the reasons given above we do not consider that any further changes beyond government Amendment 165 are necessary.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for tabling Amendment 312A and for setting out the rationale behind it. It proposes that local authorities, mayoral development corporations and Homes England should be subject to a new optimal use duty when disposing of their land. We all want to see public land disposed of by these bodies being used to support long-term improvements to the economic, social and environmental well-being of an area. However, we are not convinced that this new duty is necessary to achieve this.
As the amendment recognises, local authorities are currently subject to Section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972, which governs their disposal of land. Under the Section 123 framework, there is already a general consent which enables local authorities to dispose of land below less than best consideration when it supports the economic, social and environmental well-being of an area. Many local authorities already use the disposal of their land as an important lever to shape and improve places for the benefit of the communities, as the noble Lord acknowledged. We are not convinced that local authorities need these new duties on them to do this. As the noble Lord said, we want the planning system, through local plans, to identify the best use for a particular piece of land. Part 3 of the Bill sets out our proposals to reform local plans to achieve this. We do not think that a separate duty on local authorities is needed. In addition, it is not appropriate for the Secretary of State to impose objectives and requirements on a local authority’s land strategy. That should be a matter for the local authority to decide.
Similarly, mayoral development corporations are specifically designated to regenerate areas using land assembly, particularly to shape and drive forward development to maximise opportunities for the  public good. Where appropriate, mayoral development corporations can dispose of land at less than best consideration that can reasonably be obtained with the consent of the mayor, as set out in Section 209 of the Localism Act 2011.
Supporting the creation, regeneration or development of communities is enshrined in Homes England’s statutory objectives, and it is proactively taking action through its land programmes. Homes England is already subject to a formal general consent, granted under Section 10 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008, to dispose of land for less than best consideration from the Government. This provides them with the statutory powers to dispose of land at less than best value under the criteria set out in the consent. The criteria include meeting value for money requirements and the undervalue being for the purposes of delivering public policy requirements. More legislation to achieve the noble  Lord’s aims is not therefore needed, but I appreciate the underlying objectives behind the tabling of this amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, mentioned indexation and the rising inflation problems with land values. We recognise that the threshold for the general consent is out of date, given the rise in land values since it was set in 2003. Following Royal Assent, we intend to consult on increasing the threshold. I think this was the consultation the noble Lord referred to, and which the Minister in the other place committed to, so that best consideration will be increased from £2 million.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, talked about local help for communities. She is probably aware that the £150 million community ownership fund is being used to help communities across the UK value ownership of assets at risk of closure and that it is available until March 2025. On a personal note, I am delighted that through this route, in Pembrokeshire we have just brought into community ownership the local hardware store, Havards, in Newport. I hope that with that reassurance, and the knowledge that Part 3 of the Bill will significantly reform the basis for formulating local plans and hopefully reduce the time it takes to produce a local plan, noble Lords will not need to move their amendments.
Amendment 165 agreed.
Clauses 72 to 75 agreed.

Amendment 166

Baroness Hayman of Ullock: Moved by Baroness Hayman of Ullock
166: After Clause 75, insert the following new Clause—“Long-term empty dwellings: England - estimatesThe Secretary of State must publish an annual estimate of the number of long-term empty dwellings in England.”Member's explanatory statementThis means that the Secretary of State must publish an annual estimate of how many long-term empty dwellings exist.

Baroness Hayman of Ullock: My Lords, this group of amendments is important as it directly relates to one of the housing missions. This mission states that more first-time homebuyers will be created in all areas and the number of non-decent rented homes will be reduced by 50%. I agree that good quality housing is the cornerstone of levelling up.
We are in a severe housing crisis, with a lack of supply of affordable homes for young people and little opportunity for families to get on to the property ladder. We therefore must make the best use we can of the properties we already have and maximise opportunities for everybody in every part of the country. There are large numbers of long-term empty houses. The Bill as it stands will not give local authorities sufficient tools to start to get a grip on the situation, so despite the Government saying they want to act, this is a missed opportunity. We have tabled amendments on both long-term empty dwellings and short-term empty lets to see what we can do to help the situation.
My Amendment 166 asks the Secretary of State to publish an annual estimate of exactly how many long-term empty dwellings exist. If we are serious about tackling the issue, we need fully to understand the extent of the problem and which areas are particularly affected.
There are a number of other amendments in my name, and in the names of my noble friends Lady Taylor of Stevenage and Lord Blunkett. My noble friend Lady Taylor has tabled an amendment to increase the maximum premium chargeable on second homes from 100% to 300%. This is a probing amendment to look at where the figure should be set.
My Amendment 171 would allow the Secretary of State to give CCAs the power to restrict short-term holiday lets, and my Amendment 442 probes the question whether local authorities may request that the Secretary of State limit the number of short-term lets in their area. My noble friend Lord Blunkett’s Amendment 172A would ensure that:
“No change in existing council tax levy can be introduced without an independent economic evaluation”.
Clearly, there are complexities relating to second and unused homes. We believe that local authorities need more flexibility over council tax premiums. Surely, it must be for local authorities to decide whether or not they will charge premiums and how much these should be, depending on their local circumstances. This has been a difficult issue for local government, particularly in coastal and rural areas such as Cumbria, where I live. Locals are often priced out of the market as houses are increasingly being turned over to Airbnb or continue to be marketed as second homes. This is putting even more pressure on the housing situation. Communities can be completely hollowed out when this happens. There are villages near where I live in which the majority of houses are second homes or holiday lets. This hollows out local services and infrastructure. We lose bus services, the local school, shops and pubs, all of which are threatened when the number of people living permanently in the community diminishes.
We believe that this Bill is an opportunity to create some innovative solutions, both through the financial regime and the planning system. At the same time, we need to be aware of any unintended consequences. Loopholes exist through which properties can be pushed into the business rates category, thereby avoiding council tax. This happens too often, and we need to ensure that these loopholes are closed.
My Amendment 445 would allow regulations to be introduced to license short-term rental properties. The Labour Party believes that one way to tackle the challenge of second homes in coastal and rural areas is to introduce a licensing system that identifies genuine holiday lets, as opposed to second homes whose owners leave properties empty while pretending to rent them out to holidaymakers.
The Labour Government in Wales are planning to introduce a similar scheme, which would also allow councils to set a limit on the number of second homes. I ask the Minister whether the Government will take account of what is happening in Wales and use it to inform decision-making in England.
My amendment also highlights that some properties are occupied on only a part-time basis; they are let as short-term holiday lets from time to time, perhaps not consistently, or they may be empty for a period and utilised some of the time. The challenge is that this removes opportunities for people who desperately want to buy their own home. This is important, because empty homes, especially if there has been a period of bad weather, which we often have in Cumbria, have an impact on neighbouring properties: gardens become unwieldy and overgrown very quickly, in a matter of months, which can impact on the morale of the neighbourhood and on local house prices. Neglected properties can spread damp to each other, which must be a great concern for the next-door neighbours.
Amendment 168, in the name of my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage, and Amendment 168A, in the name of my noble friend Lord Berkeley, are to do with the lead-in period in the Bill. Amendment 168 would remove the one-year lead-in period and Amendment 168A would change it to nine months. Councils and the Local Government Association have told us that they would want to use this clause at the earliest opportunity. As the Bill currently stands, the Government would have to give a financial year’s notice after the Bill becomes law. If the Bill is not law by 1 April 2023, the earliest the premium could be applied is 1 April 2025. I am sure that is not the Government’s wish, so can the Minister take this back to the department and see if it can be speeded up?
My Amendment 170 would extend the time that people have to make arrangements for their property following a bereavement. This is a particularly difficult time for many. I have been talking about the categorisation of houses and whether they are occupied, but there may be specific reasons why a dwelling is empty. My Amendment 170 would bring compassion to decision-making. It recognises that, when a family has had a bereavement—for example, a parent, but it could be  a child or other relative—part of the grieving process is sorting out the house and deciding what to do with it, and whether to sell or to keep it. Homes can hold many memories and it can take time, especially if people live a distance away or have work or caring responsibilities. I am sure that we can all relate to such circumstances; in fact, me and my family and going through this right now. Allowing time for this is important. My amendment suggests two years to enable the process to be done with dignity and without extra pressures on the family. I ask the Minister to consider this very seriously.
The noble Lord, Lord Foster, has a number of amendments—Amendments 228, 263, 264 and 265—on second homes and new classes for holiday rentals. We support these measures. They would give local authorities greater powers to shape local housing markets and strengthen local oversight of changes in accommodation in an area. But we also believe that the Government should be making the tools that exist and are available now much easier to use in the first place.
I am thinking particularly of empty dwelling management orders, which basically allow local authorities to requisition an empty home and turn it into a social  rented property. These orders are very valuable because they mean property can be brought back into usage, in effect becoming a social rented property under the control of the local authority for a period of seven years. They are most useful because they act as a warning shot to other landlords, and show what might happen to them if they do not make good use of their properties. The problem here, though, is that the process is lengthy, laborious, expensive and difficult. Will the Minister look carefully at beefing up the existing provisions by ensuring councils can use them more readily, and therefore bring more homes back into use?
Finally, I will comment on Amendment 294, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, which seeks to introduce a new use of dwelling-houses, enabling local authorities to maintain the stock of long-term rental properties in an area. We support the noble Lord’s amendment. The CPRE has done research highlighting the surge in the number of homes marketed for Airbnb-style short lets; I have mentioned that previously. When you combine that with the steep decline in the number of new social housing products, it really is adding to a worsening housing crisis. In areas such as mine, you can really see that it is having a huge knock-on effect for rental properties available for businesses wanting to set up in the area, which then struggle to find accommodation for their workers. We know that the Government want to introduce a registration scheme, and this may well be a good step, but we need to see stronger controls and better use of the planning system, so that local priorities are put first and foremost.
I look forward to hearing the debate and to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.

Lord Young of Cookham: My Lords, Amendment 294, in my name and that of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, would oblige the Secretary of State to make short-term rental properties a distinct use class for planning purposes. The amendment is supported by the Local Government Association, of which I am, exceptionally, not a vice-president, and is based on changes made to secondary legislation in Wales in 2022.
A common theme running through all the amendments is the promotion of the country’s housing stock as a main home, either by raising the council tax on second homes or by using the planning system to control short-term lets. The planning system is not just about whether or not a piece of land is to be developed; it is about the use to which it is then put. For example, you need planning permission to convert a block of flats into a hotel. These use classes have been used to control changes that may be undesirable, and in a few cases they have been relaxed to promote changes between uses.
The Government have clearly recognised that we have now reached the stage where some form of control is needed if we are to maintain a proper balance between those who need permanent accommodation for rent and those who are making short-term visits. Clause 210, mentioned by the noble Baroness, introduced by the Government on Report and headed “Registration  of short-term rental properties”, is a very useful step which I welcome. I also welcome the statements made about it in another place by Lucy Frazer, the previous Housing Minister. It proposes a new registration scheme for short-term lets, but this will not happen for some time, as consultation on the exact design of the scheme will not start until later this year, with decisions and actions later.
A registration scheme is a good first step but we need to build on this, as proposed in my amendment, and see much stronger controls. We need to do that if the planning system is to determine local priorities. We also need to make faster progress; only then will we see a better balance of housing options which will help families and young people who simply cannot find a place to live in some rural areas but also in London. Were she still able to attend, I am sure my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes would be speaking strongly in favour of this amendment.
A balance is important. Short-term lets can provide a useful boost to the local economy by promoting tourism where commercial accommodation is in short supply or very expensive, and they can be a useful source of income for those who do not need their homes all the time—for example, if they are away on holiday. However, we need a balance between second and first homes. My amendment provides a means of meeting that balance.
The Government’s legislation needs to go further by introducing a new use class for short-term rental properties, which, in turn, should be a precondition for the registration of such properties. We may not need to regulate short-term lets across the board, but making them a separate use class, as proposed in the amendment, allows full planning control in places such as seaside towns and the area just mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, where the growth in short-term letting has become a particular issue, or here in London, where there is pressure on the rental market.
There was a 1,000% increase in homes listed for short-term lets nationally between 2015 and 2021. That is 148,000 homes that could otherwise house local families that are available on Airbnb-style lets. In Cornwall, short-term listings grew 661% in the five years to September 2021. The county has roughly 15,000 families on social housing waiting lists and the same number of properties being marketed as housing lets. The noble Earl, Lord Devon, may mention his county, where short-term lets appear to be worsening an existing housing crisis, with nearly 4,000 homes taken out of the private rented sector and 11,000 added to short-term listings since 2016.
Currently, local authorities outside London have no legal means of preventing this loss of private rented housing to short-term lets. Several cases have come to light of people in rented housing in rural areas being evicted so that the property can be let on a short-term basis. In this context, it is worth mentioning the position in London as it shows a way forward. The Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1973 —I declare an interest as I was on the GLC at the time—discouraged short-term lets by saying that the use of residential premises for temporary sleeping  accommodation for fewer than 90 consecutive nights in London was a change of use, for which planning permission was required, so London residents face a possible fine of up to £20,000 for each offence of failing to secure planning permission. That position was basically confirmed in the Deregulation Act 2015. I see some advantage in simply extending this London provision to the rest of the country.
Finally, there are issues here that go beyond my noble friend’s department. Holiday lets get mortgage interest relief; residential tenancies do not. Holiday lets have no minimum energy and safety standards, and they qualify for business rates and small business rate relief. We need a cross-government approach to get a coherent and better-balanced policy on this important matter. Of course, I hope my noble friend will feel able to accept my amendment. If she cannot go that far—and I see from her body language that that may not be possible—will she commit to consulting soon on building on Clause 210, with a view to getting that better balance between the use of scarce housing stock in areas under pressure and to helping families for whom private renting is the only option?

Lord Foster of Bath: My Lords, I will address the four amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Shipley and comment on some of the others. We have already heard numerous examples describing why we need to address the issues around empty homes, second homes and properties available for short-term rent. As noble Lords are aware, some parts of the United Kingdom have already introduced measures to tackle some of them; for example, certification of tourist accommodation in Northern Ireland and licensing schemes for short-term lets in Scotland and Wales. Sadly, at the moment, England is being left behind.
I am pleased that at long last the Government are tackling one issue—the way in which some second home owners have gamed the system so that they  pay neither council tax nor business rates—but many other problems remain. I live in east Suffolk, close  to the popular seaside town of Southwold. With the recent growth in second home ownership and the rapid rise in properties available for short-term rent, of the 1,400 properties, now only 500 have full-time residents, while 500 are second homes and 400 are short-term lets; in other words, nearly two-thirds are not permanently lived in, and this has had a significant impact.
House prices and long-term rents have risen steeply. Local families are being forced out and those working in the local tourism industry cannot find or afford local accommodation, so they go elsewhere. As a result, many of the bars, restaurants and hotels now have staff vacancies. As local councillor David Bevan said recently, soon people will not want to visit
“a soulless toytown where no one lives any more”.
Sadly, similar problems exist in my former constituency of Bath, with the added concern that students from its two universities are having increased problems finding accommodation. So I welcome the Government’s  appreciation that something needs to be done. In their recent consultation on a way forward, they provided detailed descriptions of the problems and a long list of places where such problems exist, from Devon and Cornwall to York and Cumbria. However, I am simply not convinced that the way forward as presented in the Bill goes far enough.
On empty dwellings, as with second homes and properties for short-term let, we need more data than is currently available. So, on these Benches, we support Amendment 166 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock. A partial solution to the problems caused by second homes does lie in allowing councils freedom to increase council tax on such properties. On these Benches, we have argued previously for a maximum premium of 300%, not the lower amount argued for by the Government; so we also support Amendment 167 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage,
The Government’s plans for registration of short-term lets are necessary but insufficient. We believe that a full licensing regime is preferable so we support Amendment 445C in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, as well as her probing Amendment 422, which explores ways in which councils could restrict the number of short-term lets in their area. However, I believe that we can go even further: hence Amendments 264 and 265, which propose the establishment of new use class orders for both second homes and holiday rentals. Adoption of these new use class orders—incidentally, supported by the LGA, of which I too am not a vice-president—would significantly improve data on the situation right across the country.
More importantly, when coupled with a licensing scheme, new use classes would enable councils to maintain, among other things, the stock of long-term rental properties in their area. It would give communities the power to decide their own destiny. We have  already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and the noble Earl, Lord Devon, that their Amendment 294 also calls for a new use class order, at least for short-term rental properties, with change of use to STL conditional on registration. I am more than happy to accept that theirs may be a neater solution—I am totally open-minded—but, clearly, we want to move in exactly the same direction. I also entirely agree with the noble Lord about the need for speedy action on these issues and not the rather long timescale currently proposed by the Government.
I am aware that, in its excellent report on short-term lets, your Lordships’ Built Environment Committee argued against nationwide measures of this sort. It argued that it should be for councils themselves to decide. Adopting such an approach, I believe, has two drawbacks. First, it would mean that we would not have nationwide data about second homes and properties for short-term rent. Secondly, it would mean that councils, which would not be able to get the necessary agreement to adopt and then implement such an approach quickly, could potentially be too late to adopt control measures.
After all, we have seen very rapid rises in short-term lets in some parts of the country. In Cornwall, for example, short-term listings went up by 661% in the  five years to September 2021, while in South Lakeland there was an increase of just 32% in just one year. However, we will of course listen to the arguments and the Minister’s own thoughts. Whatever route is finally decided, there needs to be adequate enforcement—a problem that has been acknowledged in London, which already has some of the measures that we are supporting. It would be helpful if the Minister could share her thinking on the issue of enforcement and the possibility of strong penalties for those platforms that list unlicensed or unregistered short-term lets.
Given the importance that we in this House have rightly placed on neighbourhood plans, we have tabled Amendment 228, which would enable neighbourhood plans to include policies that related to the proportion of dwellings that may be second homes and short-term holiday lets under the use classes in the earlier amendments. I am aware that the powers to do  so may already exist in relation to new properties in the neighbourhood plan area, although in the case of St Ives it took a High Court decision to confirm that. Our amendment would enable the control of changes of use of existing properties as well as ensuring beyond all doubt the power in relation to new properties.
I welcome the Government’s intention to address the problems that I and others have outlined, but I believe that the amendments in this group, including those proposed by my noble friend Lord Shipley and me, argue that even more needs to be done. I hope I will hear words of encouragement from the Minister when she responds.

Lord Blunkett: My Lords, I am speaking to Amendment 172A in my name, but I want to commend the breadth of what has already been described in the three speeches that we have already heard. I strongly commend Amendment 170, in the name of my noble friend on the Front Bench, about bereavement; we have to be careful what we do here.
I want to make it clear that I am not speaking about empty property. I think there is absolute clarity about taking action to bring back into proper use, as either rented or owner-occupied premises, those homes that have been empty for a length of time. However, I shall touch on some of the complexities relating to second homes. I declare a very long-term interest from 1987 onwards, because I was involved in having to have a second home as a Member of Parliament, as MPs outside a radius of 25 miles of London will inevitably have to do if they are serving their constituency appropriately. Not all do so, but these days most see it as their duty to have a foothold, a footprint, in their constituency, even if they spend more time than would otherwise be necessary in London.
Perversely, because of the nature of our housing market, even with the new rules through the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority—which will pick up, on behalf of the public purse, the cost of second homes—there can be the very perverse situation where someone chooses to designate their second home in one place when actually it is their main home, because they do not want to be caught on their death in relation to capital gains, or when they move. There are  all kinds of complexities that many people speaking today know more about than I do when it comes to the housing market.
I want to address the importance of the devolution of decision-making to local authorities, but with the proviso that those authorities are encouraged, in whatever way is appropriate, to do a proper research review themselves of the impact of the actions that they take, because the intent—and I have to say it is a very socialistic intent—of the legislation before us, in the debate that we are having, can have completely perverse consequences. Today we have heard references to short-term lets and Airbnb, which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter mentioned last Thursday, and to holiday lets. They are very different, but all have very similar impacts in the short-term nature of those coming into communities which otherwise would have long-term owner-occupier or renting residents. I separate the two because there are already consultations going out—or pseudo-consultations—from local authorities across the country, consequent on and in anticipation of the passing of this legislation, which fail completely to distinguish between ownership and rent.
Of course, there are people with second homes who rent them on a long-term basis, perhaps on a lease, and those who are the owners of the property. In certain parts of the country, we have very large landowners who are landlords and have built up over the years enormous portfolios of rented accommodation. They are the owners and people are renting—many of them local people who managed to obtain a rent agreement in the past that still holds. There is a residue of old agricultural workers legislation in some parts of the country.
The perverseness I refer to is that, on many of these large estates, when accommodation for rent becomes available because the tenant leaves—for whatever reason—it is turned into holiday lets. They are turned into business rate, rather than council tax, providers, which changes the character and nature of the locality. Of course, many second-home renters or owners may turn up infrequently. However, many, not least because of the experience we had from Covid, are spending a quite lot of time in both their homes using the facility of being online and—if I might touch on a controversial issue—working from home for part of the week. This has also transformed the nature of how the impact might be felt at a local level.
I want to put on record that, although I have no problem at all with this, it is important going forward—and I hope the Government will bring forward their own amendment—we ensure that a proper economic and social impact assessment is undertaken by people  who know what they are talking about. I am afraid to say this as someone who spent many happy years in local government, but many authorities, particularly small ones, do not have officers with the first idea  how to conduct a proper research survey, never mind analysing it.
If we do not get this right, it will have consequent perverse outcomes none of us wants. The purpose must surely be to try to get as much accommodation as possible available for long-term local provision, either for let or owner-occupation, to keep the life of  those communities going. If action is taken that has a very different effect and pushes accommodation that is currently available for rent into holiday lets, we will have achieved exactly the opposite outcome to the one we seek. As I have some experience of this and know what is going on, for example in the Peak District, I counsel very strongly that we build in guidance so that we get what we think we are getting, rather than the opposite. It does not matter if it is a 100% or 300% council tax hike if you get the wrong answer and it switches to national business rates. Neither local people nor the local authority will be the gainer.

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle: My Lords, I offer Green support for the general direction of all of these amendments. I will attempt not to repeat the tale of woe we heard, but I will make a couple of additional points and also pass on some good news, because I think we need some at this point. In the debate on the last group, I should have declared and put on the record that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
On the good news, it is worth looking at how great work done is being done around the country, on a limited and small scale, to bring empty houses back to becoming homes again. In Preston, there is a scheme called Making Homes from Houses, which has already refurbished 30 empty homes that, collectively, were  empty for a net 112 years. The process is under way for 20 more. In Hastings, a community group called Hastings Commons has been converting so-called tricky buildings into homes and eventually establishing them as community land trusts. So some really good things are happening, but very much on a small scale. We have to understand that where we are now is not any kind of inevitability but the result of decisions and policies that this group of amendments collectively seeks to find ways to change.
This certainly belongs in the levelling-up Bill. According to the most recent figures I could find on long-term empty homes, the top five cities—Birmingham, Liverpool, Durham, Bradford and Sheffield—are areas where properties often may not have a very high value, so people just leave them to sit there because it does not feel worth it to do anything with them. By contrast, I would be interested to hear if anyone has any thoughts on what to do with what I would have to describe as the obscenity of “buy to leave” in some of the wealthiest areas of the country, where people buy what could be a home for someone and just hang on to it as an asset that they assume will appreciate, but never live in it or do anything with it. I wonder whether we could do something about that, because this is not a large group but it is a big issue in areas of the country with the most intense housing pressure.
On short-term lets, it is worth noting some figures that I found: in some areas, renting a home for 10 weeks through Airbnb can pay as much as a full-term year-long let to a normal local tenant. So we have an absolute market failure, and we need to intervene here to ensure that we get the kind of outcomes that we need, which surely should be homes being regarded as secure and  affordable places for people to live, not primarily as financial assets. Of course, getting to that ideal scenario will require a lot more change than is proposed in this group, but at least here we are heading in the right direction. I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, that some steps are being made, but they are not nearly fast enough.

Lord Shipley: My Lords, I will speak very briefly about saturation areas and Article 4 directives that already exist under the planning system. I support the amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Foster of Bath. It is important because it would enable neighbourhood plans to include policies relating to the proportion of dwellings that may be second homes and short-term holiday lets under a use classes order proposed by other new clauses in this set of amendments.
Saturation areas already exist and can be defined under the licensing system—for example, for outlets serving alcohol. They operate under the licensing system. Houses in multiple occupation are also subject to a licensing system, but, in my city of Newcastle upon Tyne, they now use the planning system as well, following a lot of work that the administration that I led undertook. Under the Article 4 directives, permitted development rights can be restricted where the conversion of a family home into a house in multiple occupation would continue a trend of making family homes very expensive to buy and not easy to obtain. Without those Article 4 directives, the nature of a neighbourhood can change significantly.
So I ask the Minister what the difficulty is, in principle, over second homes and short-term holiday lets. As we have heard, there is fairly widespread support now for giving local councils and local planning authorities greater powers to restrict long-term residential homes being converted into short-term lets or second homes. There is a range of principles that I think local authorities should be able to decide for themselves. They may decide that they want to encourage short-term lets and second homes because it might increase the number of people who are buying services from local retail outlets and local leisure outlets—restaurants, pubs and so on. There is some evidence in some places that I know that that may be the case, but surely it should be for the local planning authorities themselves to be making those decisions.
The simplest way is through the use classes orders that we have heard about, but the principle already exists within existing legislation, both within the licensing system and within the planning system. My noble friend Lord Foster said that more needs to be done, and that is absolutely the case. Whereas I would support a higher council tax payment for second homes—I think there is justification for that—I am not actually convinced that it will solve the problem. I think we have to use the planning system to resolve the difficulty we face, so I hope very much that the Minister will give further consideration to this issue, which is affecting so many small communities, particularly in rural and coastal areas. The time has come for the Government to act.

Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I will get the guilt off my shoulders through your Lordships’ provision of the confessional: I declare an interest as co-owner of a second home in the West Country and of two short-term let properties in the same area. All, like the house I live in, which is in another part of the country, are legacies of estates that have been broken up and whittled down. Both areas have important family historical and indeed, in some cases, national historical associations.
Having declared that, I ought also to declare to  the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, who mentioned the Built Environment Committee, that I was, until the latter part of January, a member of that committee, and very privileged to have been so under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, who  I am pleased to see in his place, and before him, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. So I am familiar with the matters that were brought before us. However, I shall leave a lot of that to one side because there has been a bit of disaggregation in the groupings here. We have group 10 coming up, in which aspects of this will recur, and I find that quite difficult to deal with: I shall try to avoid getting up then and saying the same thing all over again and boring your Lordships.
While I have involvement with both normal assured shorthold tenancy properties and short-term buy to let, I certainly do not have anything to do with keeping property deliberately empty: that would be complete anathema to me, and I say so as somebody with professional training: I am a chartered surveyor and  I know that all that happens with empty properties is that they deteriorate. They are much better occupied and lived in or used in some way.
I agree with the general premise that residential properties should not be deliberately kept empty  for no good reason. I know that in some areas—the  City of Westminster is one—there was a thought that foreign investors were buying up high-end residential accommodation and keeping it empty under the premise that perhaps it was less valuable if it had been previously occupied. It takes all sorts, but that is a particular situation. I support the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, in her Amendment 166 because there is a great deal of speculation about how many empty properties there are and where they are. They are not always in the places where people want or need housing and have to live and work. So, first and foremost, there is a distribution problem, along with a numbers problem. We need to sort that out, and there needs to be better data on that.
I would go further and suggest that the reasons why a property might be empty need to be understood before we set about making dramatic changes, either to the amount that is levied or to planning, although I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Foster, that something probably needs to be done in some of the areas that the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, referred to—the hotspots. They are not actually everywhere; they are not in every town and city; they are in defined places. Even those who particularly object to the idea of second homes and holiday homes altogether on principle recognise—and the data seems to show—that these are in quite specific areas. They are not necessarily  in holiday locations at the seaside; they can be in the middle of cities and in parts of Greater London. We need to identify that.
We should not underestimate the inventiveness of those faced with a surcharge, any more than we should fail to consider the equity of a surcharge where there is a genuine reason the property is empty. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, referred to that and I use the example of the Ds: death, disrepair, dispute, debt, decarbonisation and, of course, redevelopment. Sorry, “redevelopment” is not a D, but noble Lords will get my drift.
Another aspect is that if there are to be additional charges, is that for the purpose of rectifying some particular, identifiable ill or mischief that is occurring, or is it just another tax? If it is just another tax and it is going into some jolly old pot, I am not particularly keen on that. There needs to be some degree of hypothecation. If there is a demonstrable case—for instance, that empty properties affect affordability in a locality or are adversely affecting incomers who might be economically active—the tax yield generated should perhaps be devoted to that or allied purposes and not put in some general pot. Presumably the case needs to be made.
I agree that ultimately, subject to some sort of national framework and means of analysis, the decision should be for the local community to put in place—and not necessarily be dictated from on high. The authorities, having made the case, must accept that the principle stood behind that is binding on them; otherwise, we risk a rather unedifying and opaque state of affairs, where the power is invoked for one reason but implemented for some entirely different objective altogether, and I would not be keen on that. We do not need a knee-jerk reaction to all that. There needs to be a consistent methodology for assessing the nature of empty second properties or short-term letting, and the detrimental effect these are having.
The noble Lord, Lord Foster, gave a graphic account of the issue, which I know from—

Lord Foster of Bath: Before the noble Earl moves on to another point I raised, could I ask, through him, for the Minister to perhaps confirm that even in the current legislation as proposed, it will be possible for councils to add a premium on the council tax for empty properties? It would be for the council to determine how that money is used; for example, my own local council has already a debate on this issue and proposed that the vast majority of additional money raised will go towards the building of more affordable homes in the area—to address the problem that is now being created because of the empty properties and short-term lets.

Earl of Lytton: I thank the noble Lord for his intervention, because that is exactly the point I am making about having a degree of hypothecation. In other words, it should not just go into the general purposes fund. I hope the Minister will comment on  that, because there is a question of trust and transparency in this. If these things are to be robust, they will need that.
From my observations, I know that what the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, said about the instances and the impact in some of these hotspot areas is true. However, we need a bit more data to get the visible, empirical facts. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, referred to that, and I entirely agree with him. We also need to identify the likely economic outcomes of certain actions. Letting platforms were referred to; we need an analysis of how they operate for some bits of businesses but not others, because they are doing lettings direct or whatever it may be, to get some idea of how that is functioning.
There is a bit of incoherence here. For a while, conversions into residential accommodation in rural areas were often subject to the condition that they could not be occupied full-time. They had to be occupied, effectively, as holiday accommodation. Usually, they could be occupied only for something like 11 months of the year continuously, because local authorities did not want to give consent for new, independent dwellings in the countryside; there was an objective not to add to them, which I understand.
When I attended a meeting on second homes at Exmoor National Park, it was asked why there was a reduced council tax assessment for people with second homes. It transpired that only by having the bait of self-declaration could they identify how many second homes they had in the area, so that is how they did it. I say incoherence, because one really feels that the world has gone mad in some of these situations.
There is a good deal of misinformation about what is perceived to be the vast profitability of short-term lettings. When I had the privilege of being on the Built Environment Committee, I ran a little exercise, which established what I knew: that I would be better off in headline income letting full-time on an assured shorthold tenancy. However, that would probably be not to a local person but to some writer, artist or someone who wanted a nice location. The real reason behind this is that, if you are dealing with an old stone cottage which requires constant maintenance and a lot of refitting—never mind that you may have energy issues and things breaking down; things go wrong in old cottages more than they do in new ones—you are constantly in and out. The only way you can keep control of that is short-term letting, because you can take a week out and get in there and fix the boiler and all the other things that have fallen apart. It is really not for the faint-hearted.
When you compare the weekly headline rents for short-term holiday lettings with those of an ordinary assured shorthold tenancy, you are not looking at like for like. You are not dealing with fully serviced accommodation, where all the linen and services are paid for, and where somebody just walks in and all they have to do is buy their own food and go, with  all the cleaning and everything else being done in-between. All that costs money. One of the greatest litmus tests of health and well-being in these rural areas is whether you can get a cleaner or someone to fix your windows.  That is the real test of what is happening in the economy. With that, I will sit down and wait for group 10.

Lord Moylan: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. I will speak briefly and narrowly to the point made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Foster, in which he argued for a national registration scheme rather than one which, as the noble Earl said, the Built Environment Committee said should be available locally and at local option. The noble Lord’s reason was that having a national registration scheme would make it easier for the Government to gather large amounts of data. That is a very weak reason for what would be an astonishing intrusion into privacy and the rights of property.
I believe the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, said that a national scheme was preferable because it could be implemented more quickly than one implemented by a local authority.

Lord Blunkett: That was not me.

Lord Moylan: I beg the noble Lord’s pardon, but I heard those remarks made. I am simply saying that I do not believe that point; any scheme implemented by the Government at a national level will take a very long time to bring forward, whereas in my experience a local authority, duly empowered and with sufficient interest in the matter, could act more quickly.
One of the important findings of the Built Environment Committee was that this problem exists, as the noble Earl said, in very localised areas. We need to understand the problem if we are to find the solution, and so we need to understand the very important localism and find locally tailored solutions rather than rush into a national scheme which would be applied to the whole country and would involve a great deal of resource being spent to no particular purpose. As the noble Earl said, we will have the opportunity to return to this on group 10, whether this evening or on our next day.
As certain noble Lords have said, there is an anomaly in the taxation of properties, depending on how they are declared. If they are declared to be residential, they are liable to domestic council tax like anybody else, but if they are declared to be in business use, which is what an Airbnb-type property might be, they pay business rates. However, business rates are not paid by anything other than quite large businesses; very small businesses do not have to pay them. Therefore, by declaring oneself for business rates, one then qualifies for threshold exemptions that are not available for domestic council tax payers. Effectively, one escapes any form of tax on the property at all.
That is clearly an anomaly about which it would be worthwhile the Government thinking, but it seems to me that the right way to address it is to change the tax rules rather than introduce a large distortion in the property market. It is giving us a solution at the wrong end; if the problem is with the tax rules, it would be better and easier to remove the anomaly from them. However, we will have an opportunity to return to  this later.

Lord Mann: My Lords, a widow in Thoresby, in Nottinghamshire, is currently being evicted by  the office of the Thoresby estate, having lived for  62 consecutive years in a rented property on that  large estate. The reason given by the estate managers is that the new higher environmental standards required  of landlords by government mean that doing up the property to an appropriate standard would be too expensive.
Therefore, this widow—after 62 years of renting and living in the same property—is currently being evicted. If, as in this case, a multi-landlord—and a recipient of many state grants over the years, as well as lottery money—has not invested sufficiently during those 62 years to bring the property up to a decent standard, there needs to be leverage for the local authority—in this case, Newark and Sherwood District Council—to ensure that a failure by the landlord to upgrade a property over a 62-year family tenancy does not result in an eviction and the emptying of a property. If the amendments in this group are not acceptable to the Government, how will they ensure that some decency prevails and that there will be effective use of existing properties which will become empty under current plans? What precise leverage will they give a local authority to ensure that this absurdity and injustice can be remedied by the local authority?

Lord Blunkett: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he will indulge me for a second. I know he knows the area very well and that the Dukeries have very large landlords and estates that he has described. Has he any knowledge in this tragic case as to whether it is likely that such an estate would sell the property, having evicted the tenant and renovated it, or is it likely that it will put it on the market as a holiday let?

Lord Mann: As reported in the last few days, the estate is saying to the local media that it does not have the money to renovate so the property will become empty. Over the years, I have seen on other comparable estates similar properties: properties in an appalling situation in terms of utility and investment. It is the failure to invest by landlords that is the problem. I repeat to the Minister: what remedy is open to the local authority to ensure that this property remains available for someone to use—preferably so that this widow of 62 years’ tenancy is able to continue to live in what I think it is reasonable to describe as her family home?

Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist: My Lords, this group of amendments concerns second homes, holiday lets and empty properties. I declare my interest as set out in the register as the owner of a second home in Wales.
In relation to Amendment 166, tabled by the  noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, I share her commitment to ensuring that we have the best-quality data to inform our policies. Indeed, I also share some of her concerns. I can assure her that we already have good systems in place; for example, local authorities report annually on the number of properties that have been classed as empty for more than six months. This  data is published as part of the council tax base statistics. It is also used as the department’s measure of long-term empty dwellings that are published in the live tables on dwelling stock. This latter data includes the number of properties vacant on a particular day, as well as the number of properties that have been empty for more than six months.
As part of our council tax base statistics, we also detail the number of properties that are subject to the existing long-term empty property council tax premium. This shows the number of properties subject to the premium in each local authority area, broken down into the different levels of premium that apply, depending on the length of time that the property has been empty. We will continue to further refine the data we seek from local authorities to ensure that we have data on how many properties are subject to the extended premium, having been empty for more than 12 months. I hope that the noble Baroness is satisfied with that assurance on data that we already collect and propose to collect.
I turn to Amendment 167, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage. The Government understand the concerns that a high concentration of second homes can have a negative impact on local communities. We have already introduced a higher level of stamp duty for purchases of second homes. We are also investing £11.5 billion into the affordable homes programme that will deliver tens of thousands of affordable homes. Clause 76 provides a further power for councils to use, enabling them to apply a premium on top of the existing council tax on second homes. This will generate additional resources for councils to reinvest, as they see fit, into local services and to improve the sustainability of local communities.
We need to ensure, however, that in introducing a premium, we strike the right balance. We must not lose sight of the fact that second homes can benefit some local economies and the tourism sector, particularly when they are regularly used as holiday homes. They can also allow people to work in and contribute to the local economy of the area, while being able to return to a family home in another part of the country.
I know that the Welsh Government have decided to allow councils there to increase the level of the existing premium on second homes to 300% from this April. That is, quite rightly, a decision for them. However, it is telling that while the Welsh Government are increasing the maximum premium that could be charged, only three of the 22 councils in Wales make use of the current maximum of 100%. The Bill includes provision for the Secretary of State to introduce different levels of premium in future, but it makes sense to see the impact and to assess the evidence of this new measure before we consider taking any further action.
I turn to Amendment 168, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and Amendment 168A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. It may be helpful if I set out the rationale for the approach in this particular part of the clause, and to make clear what it does not do. The clause does not require everyone who purchases a second home in the future  to be given at least 12 months’ notice of the application of a council tax premium on their home. If a council has introduced a second homes premium in its area, it is quite reasonable to take the view that the purchaser would have taken account of that policy as part of their decision to purchase. Nevertheless, the Government believe that it would not be fair and proper to those individuals who currently own second homes—and who may have done so for decades—to be faced suddenly with a significant change in their tax liabilities without a reasonable period of warning prior to its introduction. Therefore, the clause requires that, prior to the initial introduction of a new premium, councils should give existing owners of second homes an appropriate period to consider how they might want to respond to the measure. They may choose to sell, they may decide to retain it as a second home, or they may wish to explore alternative uses.
As the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, demonstrates, what might constitute an appropriate period of time before a new tax is applied is a matter of judgment. Given the impact that the measure may have, the Government believe that a period of one year prior to a premium’s introduction provides an appropriate window within which individuals can consider their response. Once the premium is in place, it will apply to all liable properties covered by the council’s determination. Although I understand the desire of the noble Baroness and the noble Lord to ensure that councils have access to these powers as soon as possible, the consequence of Amendment 168 would be that those owning second homes could suddenly become liable for additional tax, with very limited time to respond.
In relation to Amendment 170, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, for setting out her concern to support those individuals who may become responsible for a home following a bereavement, and to protect them from the risk that they may become liable for a premium. It is worth noting that the council tax system already provides significant support in cases where a property becomes empty following the death of the owner. If there is no other liable person, no council tax will be due until the grant of probate. If the property remains empty, there is then a further period of up to six months following the grant of probate before council tax becomes due again.
Where a property is exempt from council tax, a premium cannot be applied to it. In such situations, therefore, neither a second homes premium—as set out in this clause—nor an empty homes premium, as provided for by Section 11B of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, can apply. The noble Baroness makes a strong case for a further period of exemption from the second homes premium in those cases where a property has effectively become a “second home” as a consequence of bereavement. I do understand those concerns; it is certainly not the intention of the clause to capture all those who have unwittingly become a second home owner in such situations.
The noble Baroness has set out the arguments in favour of a two-year exemption where a property is inherited, and I can certainly see that there may be a case for some further protections. I trust that the noble  Baroness will be reassured by the fact that Clause 76 includes the power for the Secretary of State to make regulations to prescribe the types of properties that should be exempt from the premium. Those exemptions could be based on the nature of the property or the circumstances of the owner.
Before creating any potential exemptions, the Government would wish to seek views through consultation to develop a well-informed basis on which to make regulations. That will provide the opportunity for everyone to feed in their suggestions and to enable the Government to reflect on any exemptions from the second homes premium that should be introduced. It will certainly be the Government’s intention to make any such regulations before the premium comes into effect.
Regarding Amendment 172A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, I thank the noble Lord for setting out his arguments to support his proposal  for an independent economic evaluation before the introduction of council tax premiums on second homes. Councils will already be fully alert to the challenges facing their local areas when it comes to the impacts caused by large numbers of second homes. It is clearly right that councils will want to have reflected carefully on the merits of introducing a premium, and at what level, and also how they propose to make use of the additional resources generated by a premium.
I welcomed the endorsement by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, of the hope that devolution to local authorities should enable them to undertake a proper review of these housing needs, and of course this will be helped by having the correct data available on which to base these decisions. As always, the noble Lord made a number of thoughtful observations, including on the way that the use of second homes has changed since the pandemic and with the advent of working from home.
I am sure that, in considering whether to introduce a premium, councils will want to reflect on the potential behavioural responses that might follow. This might include some second home owners deciding to use their homes as holiday lets. Such steps would clearly have an impact on the potential revenues, and I am sure that councils will want to note that. The measures we have set out in the Bill provide councils with the discretion to introduce a premium, and at what level, up to the statutory maximum; it does not require them to do so. We believe that it is right to trust councils to make their own decisions on whether to introduce  the premium, informed by their own knowledge and experience of the impacts of second homes. Councils will of course also have the freedom to decide how to make use of that funding.
Councils will be accountable in the normal way for the decisions they make, including the introduction of the premiums and any future changes they wish to make. As such, I believe it is right that we trust local judgments and avoid dictating what considerations councils should take into account prior to making any changes to the council tax premium.
I now turn to Amendments 171, 442 and 445C in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, Amendments 228, 263, 264 and 265, tabled by  the noble Lords, Lord Foster of Bath and Lord Shipley, and Amendment 294 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. These are highly important matters for many, not least the communities that feel the effects of second homes and holiday lets most acutely. As such, although the final design of the scheme will depend on the views we hear in our consultations, in relation to Amendment 171, these are locally specific matters with a strong connection with the planning system.
Amendment 228 seeks to allow neighbourhood plans to set policies in relation to the number of properties in an area that are permitted to be used as second homes or holiday lets. Neighbourhood plans are an important part of the planning system that allow communities to shape developments that meet their needs. Existing legislation, and the changes within Clause 91 of the Bill, already allow for policies relating to the sale or use of dwellings to be included  in a neighbourhood plan. Some areas, including in Northumberland and Cornwall, already have such policies in place.
The Government recognise the impacts that the proliferation of second homes, holiday lets and temporary sleeping accommodation can have on communities in some areas. We have heard, for example, the concerns of areas such as the Lake District, Devon and York regarding the impact of increasing numbers of short-term holiday lets on the availability of homes for local people and the broader community. I have already mentioned the action the Government are taking, both through this Bill and elsewhere, to address these issues. We know that solutions for local areas will need us to look at practical solutions that will help to address specific local issues without unintended consequences.
Amendments 263, 264 and 265 all share a common feature by introducing a transaction feature into the definition of development. They seek to require that planning permission be obtained for a property to be used as a second home or holiday rental following a change of ownership. This requirement applies whether or not they were used in that way before the change  in ownership. Planning permission is required for development, including the material changes of use; a change of ownership does not constitute development. The implications of treating transactions as falling within these definitions would be ongoing uncertainty and cost for home owners, buyers and the housing market as a whole. The Government are therefore not convinced that this approach is quite right; we already have the power in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to introduce a use class for holiday lets, secondary or supplementary residences.
In relation to Amendments 265, 294, 442 and 445C in particular, we have announced, in addition to the registration scheme in the Bill—on which we shall be consulting—that we will consult on the introduction of a planning use class for short-term lets. This consultation will in particular seek views on the definition of a short-term let. As such uses are not an issue everywhere, we will also consult on the introduction of national permitted development rights for the change of use from a C3 dwelling-house to a short-term let  and vice versa. These rights may then be removed by making an Article 4 direction where there is a local issue, meaning a planning application would then be required where there is a material change of use.
We are also exploring how, were this approach to be adopted, the register could support local planning authorities in the application and enforcement of any use class changes, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Foster, can await the outcome of these consultations. Further detail on the timing of this consultation will be provided—and here I have a minor victory for my noble friend Lord Young: I have been able to change it from “in due course” to “shortly”. Sadly, I was not allowed to go further than that, but I do believe that “shortly” really means “shortly”. Subject to the outcome of the consultation, were the new use class introduced, the changes would help local authorities control the proliferation of such uses where existing homes seek to become used for short-term lets.
In relation to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Mann, I will have to take away that very sad story and ponder on it a bit further. But with those comments, I hope I can persuade noble Lords not to press their amendments.

Baroness Hayman of Ullock: My Lords, perhaps I ought to start by saying that I am also not a vice-president of the LGA, seeing as other noble Lords seem to have made that clear. This has been a very good debate with a lot of speakers, and I thank all noble Lords who have taken part. One of the things that has come across is the significant recent increase in short-term lets and the fact that something does need to be done around this.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for his support, his amendments and his speech. He made the very important point that a registration scheme is a good first step, but we do need to make faster progress on this. As he said, a consultation to get a better balance between first homes and second homes would be a very good start. I also congratulate him on his small victory, which the Minister just announced. The noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, made the important point of the significant impact on prices and affordability of more homes going to short-term let, and the fact that the Bill does not go far enough as it stands, as far as we are concerned. Again, I thank him for his support for our amendments.
I would also like to thank my noble friend Lord Blunkett for his support for my Amendment 170 regarding bereavement. And, while I am on Amendment 170, I am really pleased that the Minister said that there is going to be further opportunity to look at this, and perhaps some consultation. I would be really pleased to be kept informed of any developments on this area, but it is very good that people are listening and taking account of this particular consideration.
My noble friend Lord Blunkett made an important point that there needs to be an economic and social impact assessment, and that it needs to be made by people who know what they are doing in this area. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, referenced  examples of where empty buildings are being brought back into use as homes. She is absolutely right to make that point—we need to look at where good practice  is happening around the country and see how we can then spread that into other areas. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, talked about saturation areas, but they can be very difficult to enforce. Perhaps the Government could look at how to make this option more accessible to local authorities and consider the noble Lord’s suggestion further.
The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, was right to say that all that happens with an empty property is that it deteriorates. That is, of course, one of the problems.  I thank him for supporting my Amendment 166. He also made the valid point that this is about understanding not just where the empty properties are but why they are empty. The noble Lord, Lord Mann, talked about what can happen when properties are not properly looked after and gave a dreadful example.
On Amendment 167, the Minister referenced stamp duty as something the Government are already doing, but it does not go to local authorities—it goes to the Treasury. I thought I would just make that point. On Amendment 168, I understand her point about an inappropriate time for councils to inform owners of any increase in council tax, but we still think that one year is quite a long time.
I am very glad that, in winding up, the Minister mentioned that the Government appreciate the impact on communities of large numbers of short-term lets and second homes. At the moment, I feel that if something does not happen quite drastically, this is only going to increase. The reasons why we should deal with this were mentioned during the debate. For example, you can get more rent—it is quite simply a matter of sums. So we need to do more.
I thank the Minister. She gave a very thorough response, which is much appreciated. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment 166 withdrawn.

  
Clause 76: Dwellings occupied periodically: England
  

Amendments 167 to 168A not moved.

Amendment 168B

Baroness Hayman of Ullock: Moved by Baroness Hayman of Ullock
168B: Clause 76, page 85, line 14, at end insert—“(10) In the case of a billing authority which is a district council in a county for which there is  a county council, the increase in council tax arising from a determination under section 11B or this section must be paid into the collection fund.(11) Except to the extent that a billing authority decides that any proportion of the amount paid into the collection fund under subsection (10) should be paid from the collection fund to one or more major precepting authorities which issue a precept to that billing authority, the amount paid to the collection fund under subsection (10) must be paid to the billing authority.”   Member's explanatory statementThis amendment seeks to ensure that, in the case of a district council for which there is a county council, all of the income from the supplements under section 11B or 11C of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 would be retained by the district council as it is the housing authority. The amendment allows the district council to decide to allocate some of the supplement to any of its major precepting authorities if it so chooses.

Baroness Hayman of Ullock: My Lords, my Amendment 168B seeks to ensure that, in the case of a district council for which there is a county council, all the income from the supplements under Section 11B or new Section 11C of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 would be retained by the district council as it is the housing authority. The amendment allows the district council also to decide to allocate some of the supplement to any of its major precepting authorities if it decides to do so. I will not go into much detail about this amendment; I think what it is trying to achieve is pretty self-explanatory.
Previous days in Committee have included a lot of discussion about the important role that district councils play in delivering services to our communities. Noble Lords have talked about the fact that, in many parts of the Bill, they feel that district councils are being shut out. They will not have access to the same opportunities within the proposed combined county authorities, and they are not then going to get the support they need to continue to deliver services, including housing and planning. We believe that if the district council is the housing authority, it should be able to keep all the income from these sections of the Local Government Finance Act. It should also be in the district council’s gift to decide how that income should be used. In the previous debate, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, talked about local authorities being able to decide how funds are spent in other areas. Again, we absolutely agree that this is important.
My Amendment 169 would give the owner of a dilapidated property up to a year after acquiring the property to refurbish it before additional council tax rates are incurred. We touched in the previous group on dilapidated properties but, I suggest, from a different perspective. This is an issue that came to me when I was a Member of Parliament in the other place. Constituents would come to me because they were having financial difficulties in being able to update a dilapidated property, which sometimes they had inherited, because of the amount of council tax they were being clobbered with—to be blunt—which made it much more difficult for them to have the funds they needed to do up the property in good time. It was taking them a long time to do it up.
We know that bringing old, dilapidated buildings back into use will benefit the whole community. However, as I said, it can take a long time, depending on what is needed—for example, if there are problems with damp or you need a new roof. It can take a long time for properties to be restored to a good condition.  My Amendment 169 recognises that there can be circumstances in which houses will not be occupied while work needs to be carried out. It is also designed to encourage people to bring homes back to a decent  standard without being hampered by having to pay higher council tax rates, which, as I said, can impact on people being able to pay the costs of refurbishment.
The other amendments in this group, Amendment 428 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock—I look forward to her introduction of the proposed new clause—and Amendment 474 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, look at the business rates system. Amendment 428 proposes to review it, and Amendment 474 proposes to review it and include consultation to look at how we can bring economic support to businesses, especially in high streets and town centres.
This issue is incredibly important. We know that business rates have had a very negative impact on many of our high streets and town centres, and I am sure we will debate that when we come to the group on high streets later in Committee. Noble Lords know that I feel very strongly that good public consultation and participation for communities is important when we are looking at these kinds of issues. We know that business rates are one of the most important taxes for local government, but they have also been blamed for the struggles of retailers, for the death of the high street and for exacerbating the country’s economic divides.
I suggest that there are three fundamental problems with business rates, which I ask the Minister to take away for further thought and discussion. First, they do not always reflect local economic realities. That became extremely clear during the pandemic, when many businesses struggled to keep going. Secondly, business rates can be far too complex; we do not need them to be that complicated. Thirdly, at the moment they actually disincentivise investment, which is crazy—they should be doing exactly the opposite.
We support these amendments, as we believe that we need a reformed system which will support towns and cities in improving their business environments, raise productivity and boost prosperity.

Lord Etherton: My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 474. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for allowing me to speak first. We both have the same objective in mind: that there should be a review of non-domestic business rates. The main differences between us are twofold: first, the noble Baroness’s amendment is slightly more prescriptive than mine; secondly, and more importantly, my amendment would provide for a public consultation. Those are the only two differences, really; there is nothing much more than that.
I should declare my interest as the owner of high street investment retail properties, and I am grateful for the support of noble Lords across the House who have signed my amendment. The objective of my amendment is stated in its proposed new clause: to make business rates
“fairer to businesses and to sustain economic activity and growth, especially in high streets and town centres.”
The Bill is an entirely appropriate vehicle for such a provision, since one if its major concerns is that there are empty high street retail properties and failed retail businesses both on the high street and in town centres.
I acknowledge the steps taken in the Autumn Statement to ease some of the economic burden of business rates but, if we want flourishing high streets, we need to look at the system as a whole and not rely on ad hoc changes. Those who invest in retail properties, whether they run small businesses there or otherwise, will want to know what their liabilities are—not what might happen in future—either to raise or reduce business rates or to introduce new ones. This is the one outgoing that is not negotiable. You can negotiate your employees’ wages; you can negotiate the rent; you can go to one of a number of power and energy suppliers; however, you cannot negotiate the rates.
The Government said by way of a manifesto commitment that they would reduce the overall burden of business rates. In fact, the Office for Budget Responsibility reported last year that the Government are
“forecasting that income from business rates will rise to nearly £36bn by 2027/28 (from £28.5bn in 2022/23)”—
a very significant increase that is quite contrary to that manifesto commitment.
There are numerous reasons why it is appropriate to have a review of—and, I would say, a public consultation on—non-domestic rates. Let me mention a few. The uniform business rate multiplier, which is used to calculate rate bills, is running much higher than its historical level, which was 34p; currently, it is 51p or 49.9p for small businesses. Consideration also needs to be given to the empty property rates relief; there is a question as to whether the six-month empty property rates holiday should be extended from the warehouse and industrial sectors to include retail and offices.
Then, there is the question of how often revaluations should take place for the purpose of fixing the level of rates, the suggestion being that it should be yearly. Another question is what is or is not rateable in relation to plant machinery. Finally—these are only a few of the considerations that need to be addressed—there is the question of the appeals system, which is too lengthy, not transparent and not accessible. Those are reasons why it seems essential to me that, if we are to have full and flourishing businesses and retail properties on the high street, we need to look at this one non-negotiable expense, which is running at an historical high, notwithstanding, as I said, the ad hoc reliefs granted in the Autumn Statement.
Finally, I want to put one possible concern completely to rest. I may be entirely mistaken, but I understood from one of the all-Peers sessions held by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, that there may be a question as to whether the proposed amendments on business rates trespass on the financial privilege of the House of Commons concerning money Bills. First, there is nothing in our amendments to suggest that business rates should be raised—quite the contrary. More to the point, the ways and means resolution in the other place specifically extends the Bill to include matters relating to the charging of fees and other charges. Whatever the privileges of the other place may be, they do not preclude this House from reaching its own views on what should be done about business rates.

Baroness Pinnock: My Lords, I totally agree with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, said about his Amendment 474 and the complexity of the system. It is difficult for businesses to negotiate the terms which determine their viability; business rates cannot be negotiated; and the multiplier has risen substantially in the past few years, making the costs to businesses unaffordable in many cases.
Amendment 428 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Shipley addresses a principle of business rates rather than the nuts and bolts. The key to levelling up and realising one of the ambitions of the White Paper—vibrant and successful town centres and high streets—lies in business rates. Too many town centres across the country are blighted by empty, boarded-up shops, which then become less attractive to local people wanting to shop there, causing a downward spiral.
I accept that the purpose of town centres is changing, as in fact it always has done. The balance of provision in town centres is increasingly shifting from the sale of goods towards services such as hair salons, nail bars and the like. However, the growth of e-commerce has put enormous pressure on traditional retail. This is where Amendment 428 comes in, because it would require a fundamental review in principle of business rates.
These are the reasons. The Government call it “bricks versus clicks” and “the tax imbalance” on the government website, which then refers to business rate revaluation, which actually does very little to redress the imbalance. I will give an example of one of the great e-commerce providers, Amazon. Its provision is in out-of-town warehouses and their rateable values are very low. An Amazon warehouse near me in Doncaster is paying rates at £45 per square metre—on average, because things change according to what is provided in a warehouse—whereas a small town centre shop near me has rates of £250 per square metre. We should think about that differential. The massive warehouse is providing retail goods, as is the small shop, but there is this huge disparity between the rates they are being charged, putting the town centre retail shop at a huge disadvantage.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, mentioned in an earlier group that the Government are tackling this by reducing town centre business rates by 20% following the revaluation. I always get cross about the use of percentages, because they are ratios, so whether they are percentages of a large number or a small number makes a very big difference. A 20% reduction on this £250 per square metre still leaves them paying £200 per square metre. However, although the Government have raised the rates for e-commerce by 27%, they are still paying only £56 per square metre. The disparity is still enormous, leading to an unfair competitive advantage for the e-commerce sector.
The Government have rejected the idea of an online sales tax, and I can understand why. It will be complex. However, I urge the Minister to respond positively to my suggestion that the Government use the existing business rates system to provide for much fairer competition between e-commerce and retail in physical shops. E-commerce businesses have a huge advantage. Not only are their business rates low but some of them  also manage not to contribute much taxation to the country. They lead to significant increases in the volume of traffic, moving the goods between warehouses or from warehouses to pick-up sites or people’s homes. Yet, if they use electric vehicles, which is a good thing, they are not contributing much to the upkeep of the roads. Whichever way you look at it, e-commerce retail is at a considerable advantage. That is not in line with the Government’s ambition, which I totally support, of having vibrant town centres. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, referred to incentives to help out-of-town warehouses. I think I have given the answer to that. The business rates for these e-commerce sectors must be in line so that there is fair competition between the two ways of providing retail goods.
Amendments 168B and 169, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, make a good case for the retention of rates income by district councils. I will listen carefully to the Minister’s response to that argument. On Amendment 169, it will be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say, but I understood that there is already a grace period for uninhabitable buildings to be made habitable during which they are exempt from council tax. Maybe that is not the case, but I remember taking it through this House and I understood that to be the definition then.
It would also be helpful for us all to understand the definition of empty homes, empty properties, empty dwellings, because it is not always as it seems. Maybe the Minister will put me right, but my understanding is that empty properties are not empty if they are partially furnished. There is a whole debate around definitions of empty properties and uninhabitable dwellings that we probably need to understand more closely with regard to these amendments and the previous group in relation to council tax on holiday lets, short-term lets and second homes.
So that is my proposition to the Minister. We need a fundamental review of business rates because retail is changing fast. If substantial change to level the playing field is not made, the ambition for vibrant town centres will fail. I beg to move.

Lord Ravensdale: My Lords, I was pleased to sign Amendment 474 tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. I also support the other related amendment in this group, Amendment 428, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock.
Regeneration of high streets and town centres is particularly important in the context of levelling up. I cannot stress enough how important a thriving town centre and high street are for the morale of a city, for its togetherness and for its onward development. Many high streets and town centres in the regions, including in some areas in Derby, where I live, are struggling with low occupancy and empty premises. This must be resolved urgently if we are truly to level up the regions and bring back the economic dynamism that is required for further developments.
I know that the Government get this, and their plans for enhanced compulsory purchase powers and high street rental options could form part of the solution here. However, in my role as co-chair of the Midlands Engine All-Party Parliamentary Group, I  have canvassed many local stakeholders on what would really make a difference to high street regeneration, and the theme that comes at the top of the list time and time again is business rates.
The current structure of business rates makes it simply unviable for businesses to set up in certain locations. To expand on what the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said, a property was being marketed on East Street, Derby last year at a lease of £35,000 per annum. It had a rateable value of £112,000 and rates payable of £56,000, so the rates were significantly higher than the rent. Another example, from the British Property Federation, is a property in a Hull for which the business rates bill was around three times higher than the rent a property in that location could reasonably demand. There are further cases of businesses not being willing to renew leases on their properties, even at zero rent.
The current structure of business rates is a significant barrier to businesses setting up in high streets and town centres. Although the temporary rate reliefs to which other noble Lords have referred are welcome, compulsory purchase powers and high street rental auctions are tinkering at the edges of the problem; we must avoid the need for these temporary sticking plasters. Landlords do not usually want their properties to be empty. The core of the problem is that businesses need that incentive structure to set up in town centres, and this will be achieved only by the wholesale reform of business rates. Another way of phrasing it is that the problem is not the supply of empty units; it is the demand signal for businesses to set up there.
I am sure that many noble Lords have ideas about how this could be achieved. Clearly, we are not going to propose a new model for business rates in this Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, set out some of the key areas of business rates reform which need to be looked at. The right way forward is a wide-ranging consultation, expanding on some of the evidence heard from noble Lords today, which proposes a new model for rates to make them fairer for businesses and to end the problems we have on high streets in the regions. I hope that the Government will seize this opportunity to bring back vibrancy, purpose and pride to many of our struggling high streets and town centres.

Lord Shipley: My Lords, my name appears on Amendment 428, together with that of my noble friend Lady Pinnock. I just want to say two things. First, I hope the Minister understands the seriousness of this issue. Proposals for the reform of business rates have been regularly promised in the past, and there is clear evidence that reform is needed.
Secondly, I draw the House’s attention to the announcement this morning, which will be furthered at a conference in Liverpool tomorrow, of the launch of the fiscal devolution report of the Northern Powerhouse Partnership. It makes five key recommendations: first, devolution of reform of the business rates system to all mayoral authorities; secondly, the creation of three new council tax super-bands; thirdly, devolution of stamp duty to local councils; fourthly, devolution of 1p of existing employers’ national insurance contributions  for local transport services and infrastructure, as is done in France; fifthly, a tourism tax on hotel stays to support culture, protect the environment and improve visitor experiences.
There will be a debate about that and, as we have heard, consultation will be needed on how to reform business rates. The time has come for this to be taken very seriously and for proposals to be initiated. I hope the Minister can tell the Committee that that is what the Government intend to do.

Baroness Scott of Bybrook: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, for setting out in Amendment 168B her suggested redistribution of the income raised by the council tax premium from upper-tier councils to district councils. The proposed premium will provide all councils, including district councils, with the opportunity, where they set a premium at the maximum level of 100%, to raise double the revenue from each second home in their area.
Revenue from council tax is essential for a wide range of councils, providing them with funding to make available a range of public services which best fits the needs of the local area. Under this amendment, in an area with two tiers of councils the district council would be able to retain all the income raised by the council tax premiums. This would disturb one of the key components of the council tax system—that local authorities should calculate their council tax charge for local services on the same basis as each other, with equal access to the revenues generated. The long-term empty homes premium has been in place since 2013 and has followed this long-established principle. We trust councils to make their own decisions on where their funding should be spent, and we do not consider it appropriate to engineer the system to direct part of the proceeds of council tax to one particular type of authority in some parts of the country.
Different communities will have their own set of challenges and solutions to second home ownership and empty properties. For instance, this may be through additional funding for transport or education, which falls within the remit of county councils. The current approach provides flexibility for a range of councils and other authorities to generate additional income, which can be used as they see fit. If a council feels that funding should be put towards a particular goal such as housing, this should be discussed with the other authorities in the usual way.
A change in the distribution method for the council tax premiums would also create an imbalance between two-tier areas and areas covered by unitary authorities. For example, in a single-tier area with a high number of second homes, such as Cornwall, the council would be required to share the proceeds of the premiums with the other precepting authorities, such as the  PCC or the fire and rescue service. However, in a two-tier area with a high number of second homes, such as Norfolk, the amendment would mean that all additional income was retained by the district council. Notwithstanding the second part of the noble Baroness’s  amendment, there would be no obligation to enable precepting authorities to benefit from the increased income. This may be advantageous to the district but would prevent the income being spent on services provided by other authorities in the area that can benefit the local community, such as road maintenance and better care for the elderly.
I turn to Amendment 169, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. We discussed earlier in Committee that the purpose of Clause 76 is to provide councils with an opportunity to apply a council tax premium on second homes. As with all properties, second homes may be in a variety of different conditions. For the purposes of Clause 76, however, a second home would be caught by the provision only if the property was substantially furnished. Indeed, this is an important factor in differentiating such properties from those that might be impacted by the long-term empty homes premium, as set out in Clause 75. Where such properties are substantially furnished, I would not envisage that they are likely to be in a condition to require significant work as a result of dilapidation. Therefore, the premium council tax on a second home applies only where it is furnished. However, in specific circumstances the local authority has tax relief powers as well.
Notwithstanding that potential distinction, I can reassure the noble Baroness that the clause already makes provision for the Secretary of State to make regulations that exempt certain classes of property from the effects of the second homes premium. Similar powers are already in place for the long-term empty homes premium. Obviously, before making any regulations the Government would wish to consult on any exemptions and to provide everyone with the opportunity to say what should—and, perhaps, what should not—be exempt from the effect of the premium.
The noble Baroness’s amendment also proposes  a right of appeal against the imposition of a second homes premium. I can reassure her that, under Section 16(1) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, council tax payers already have the right of appeal against any calculation of amounts they are liable to pay, including any premiums.
Finally, Amendments 428 and 474 were tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. The Government are of course aware of the pressures facing businesses, including those on the high street, and have acted to support businesses up and down the country. As noble Lords are no doubt aware, the Government have only recently concluded a comprehensive review of the business rates system. A final report on the review was published at the Autumn Budget 2021, alongside a package of reforms worth £7 billion over five years. The review recognised the importance of the system in raising funds for critical local services in England, worth around £22.5 billion in 2022-23, and concluded that there was no consensus on an alternative model that would be of sufficient scale to replace business rates.
At the Autumn Statement 2022, the Government went even further and announced a range of business rates measures worth an estimated additional £13.6 billion  over the next five years. As part of that package the Government announced that the tax rate will be frozen for a further year. This is a real-terms cut to the tax rate, worth around £9.3 billion over five years.
In addition, the retail, hospitality and leisure relief will be extended for a further year and made more generous. In 2023-24, it will provide eligible businesses with 75% off their bills, up to a maximum of £110,000 per business. This is worth an estimated £2.1 billion to ratepayers, many of which are on our high streets.
Furthermore, in response to the concerns of businesses in England, the Government will, for the first time and subject to legislation, introduce a transitional relief scheme for the 2023 revaluation. This will be funded by the Government and is expected to save businesses £1.6 billion. This will mean that the 300,000 ratepayers—

Baroness Pinnock: I apologise to the Minister for interrupting her reply, but she seems to be listing all the ways in which the Government are providing help to businesses via different reliefs for their business rates payments. If the business rates system is so bad that it needs substantial relief from the Government for those businesses to survive—and the amounts that the noble Baroness referenced were substantial—I can only conclude that the business rates system, as it applies to businesses in town centres, is broken. That is the reason for the argument that I have made, and why I hope that the Government will accept that business rates need a fundamental change; otherwise, the Government will be continually asked to provide relief to enable businesses just to survive.

Baroness Scott of Bybrook: I think I explained to the noble Baroness that we went out for extensive review—the issue is that we and local services need business rates—and there was no consensus on how they might be changed and made different, such that a similar amount of money would be coming in so that local areas could provide services. We tried but came to no consensus.

Lord Etherton: The Minister referred to, and I think the Government are relying upon, a 2021 review. What was the public’s involvement in that review?

Baroness Scott of Bybrook: I am sorry; I cannot tell the noble and learned Lord that, but I will make sure that I look into who, including the public, was consulted as part of that review. I will make sure that I get an answer to him and will put it in the Library.
As I said, in response to the concerns of businesses in England, the Government will introduce the  transitional relief scheme for 2023. This will mean that 300,000 ratepayers seeing reductions in their rateable value at the revaluation also see an immediate fall in their bills from 1 April this year, rather than seeing those changes phased in over the life of the list. This will make the rates system much fairer and more responsive, and ensure that ratepayers benefit from the revaluation as soon as possible.
The Government also announced a supporting small businesses relief scheme, which will ensure that ratepayers losing some or all of their small business or rural rate relief as a result of the revaluation see their increases capped at a maximum of £600 in 2023-24. This is worth more than £0.5 billion over the next three years and will protect an estimated 80,000 small businesses. This is again on top of generous existing packages of statutory support provided to small businesses through the small business rates relief, which ensures that over 700,000 of our smallest businesses pay no rates at all.
The Levelling-Up and Regeneration Bill provides additional measures to address empty properties on the high street, such as the high street rental auctions. These measures will empower places to tackle decline by bringing vacant units back into use and will seek to increase co-operation between landlords and local authorities. Auctions will make town centre tenancies more accessible and affordable for tenants, including SMEs, local businesses and community groups. A review has only recently concluded and the Government remain committed to delivering on its conclusions. The £7 billion reform package announced at the end of that review and the £13.6 billion package of support announced at the Autumn Statement 2022 will, alongside the 2023 business rates revaluation, deliver vital help to those most in need, such as our high streets, and rebalance the burden of our business rates. In the light of these explanations, I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

Baroness Hayman of Ullock: My Lords, I thank everyone who took part in the debate. I have two specific amendments in this group, but the debate has focused mainly on business rates. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, was right when he said that we need to look at the system as a whole and that business rates are not negotiable. That is part of the problem. If the Government are looking to reduce business rates, and they say that quite often, they need to look at how local authorities are funded, because so many are reliant on business rates. The debate has also demonstrated that the appeals system does not work at all. The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, talked about the need for economic dynamism for high street regeneration and said that business rates are a problem to achieving it. I completely agree with this.
When introducing her amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, was right to refer to the mission to which this relates, which is about increasing pride of place. On that note, I point out that there is not currently any incentive for local authorities to improve their town centres and increase the business base, as they are subject to tariffs. This perverse system actually discourages proper investment.
Again, the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, talked about e-commerce’s advantage over town centre premises and said that we need a fair competition. I am sure that the Government accept that. The challenge for all of us is what to do about it—how do you make that level playing field? I do not think there are necessarily easy answers to that.
I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for her supportive comments regarding my amendments. She asked a question on Amendment 169 around  dilapidation and the grace period that councils can bring in. The Minister mentioned something along these lines. What I found, when I had constituents coming to see me who were in this position, was that you only got that reduction or grace period if the council agreed that there was an issue of dilapidation; they do not always do that. You can get people being unstuck if the council will not agree it—then that reduction does not happen, and people get stuck. That was one of the points that I was trying to make.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, rightly drew attention to the fiscal devolution document that is being published for the north. I think this is really important because we do not believe that levelling up is going to be successful without fiscal devolution.
I thank the Minister for, as always, her detailed and thorough response to my amendments; it is appreciated. I will make one final comment on business rates following the noble Baroness’s response. Rather than tinkering with reliefs and temporary measures, we believe the whole system urgently needs a complete overhaul. It needs replacing with a fairer system that actually works for business. The current system, unfortunately, does not. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment 168B withdrawn.
Amendments 169 to 170 not moved.
Clause 76 agreed.
Amendments 171 to 172A not moved.

  
Clause 77: Alteration of street names: England

Amendment 173

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage: Moved by Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
173: Clause 77, page 86, line 23, at end insert “and it has considered the historical, cultural or archaeological significance of a name change”Member's explanatory statementThis amendment requires cultural, historical and archaeological factors to be considered before making a name change.

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage: My Lords, I come to this amendment with a deal of frustration about the clause being in the Bill at all. I have a great deal of support for the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, to Clause 77 in that I really have no idea what such an issue is doing in a Bill aimed at tackling big, strategic issues of levelling up and regeneration—never mind devolution. We have been told many times in debates on this Bill that the Government’s business is not to intervene with matters when they should be devolved to local authorities. So I can only assume this is there to pacify a noisy bee in someone's bonnet, perhaps on the Back Benches in the other place. The inclusion of this clause is even more peculiar when you consider the major issues that we think have either been left out of the Bill or skipped over, like local government finance, the business rate discussion we just had, proper consideration of environmental issues,  delivery of social and affordable housing and even the Government's own levelling up missions, which are considered too transitory to be included in the Bill.
In my opinion, councils are perfectly able to deal with issues relating to street names without government legislation or intervention. If there are legal issues relating to that, perhaps they need to be covered. However, being realistic, I am aware even in my short time in Parliament that bees in Back-Benchers’ bonnets can be exceedingly loud and powerful. So if we are not going to persuade the Government that this clause has no place in a strategic Bill, my thought was that we had better make it add some value to the existing process for street naming.
Because I live in a town that was subject to a fantastic and visionary master plan back in the 1940s and 1950s, it was designed so that street names are zoned. For example, in one part of the town, you have streets named after women pioneers, which I really approve of: Ferrier Road, Nightingale Walk and—my favourite—Pankhurst Crescent. Another area is great architects: Telford Avenue, Wren Close, Nash Close and so on. So with a modicum of knowledge of my town, you can navigate your way around. Our street naming committee maintains a list of further names for that area to allocate as developments occur, upon which extensive community consultation takes place, as you would expect from a co-operative council.
I presume that this clause is aimed at tackling issues which arise when it becomes apparent that an individual after whom a street is named does not have quite the gilded reputation that they may have done previously, or when our view of part of our history as a country alters because of cultural changes. That will happen from time to time; there is nothing wrong with that so far. But surely it is in a council’s gift already to consult with local people, set out the reasons for the change and get on with it.
My first amendment is to ensure that appropriate thought is given to the context, history, potential connotation and local perceptions of the proposed change. In relation to the point about archaeology, I think this does need consideration, as a brief search will determine whether any future development is likely to reveal earlier uses of the land which can help in determining new names. For example, the huge hoard of Roman coins which was found on one of our estate developments resulted in the proposed road names being scrapped in favour of Augustus Gate, Valerian Way and Jupiter Gate, to remind us of their Roman history. That is the kind of thing that can occur with a very brief search before naming occurs.
On Amendment 175 in my name, if we must prescribe the process for changing street names—my preference is obviously that we do not—then it is vital that effective consultation is carried out with all of those who live in the area and those who may have businesses there. For those who are resident, I hope it is obvious that they should be consulted. For business owners, there may be a cost involved—sometimes considerable—in changing their business address and ensuring they are given adequate time to assess and comment on any change is clearly vital. I beg to move.

Lord Stunell: My Lords, I have given notice that I think Clause 77 should not stand part of the Bill. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, for her helpful introduction and explanation of the situation. This is a clause which is out of place in the Bill in the first place, but, more to the point, assuming that we will have to consider it, this is a clause in search of a problem and I cannot find out what the problem is.
If you turn to the impact assessment, the very first questions posed by every impact assessment are: what is the problem under consideration, and why is government action or intervention necessary? The impact assessment for this Bill is 101 pages long; I may not have been a very diligent reader, but I could not find any reference in it to this clause. It would appear that the Government have not answered the question in an impact assessment of what the problem under consideration is and why action is necessary. That has not stopped us getting a clause which is 67 lines long and covers two pages. It has not stopped us getting Schedule 5; I do not suppose too many noble Lords have ploughed through Schedule 5, but what it does is repeal the existing powers that there are for councils to change street names.
So I am none the wiser. Is this clause here to enable residents to change an unpopular street name in the face of a recalcitrant council that will not shift—perhaps they live in Savile Row and the word Savile has dropped out of favour and needs to be changed, but the council will not hear of it? Or is it here to prevent councils introducing an unpopular change that residents oppose? Putting it another way, is the target councils that insist on changing street names or councils that refuse to change street names?
One way or another, I was an elected representative for 37 years on various councils and at the other end of this building and never, in all my time, did I come across a case where either of these things obtained. I did come across cases where people wanted to change names or the council might think it was a good idea to change names. There was a straightforward discussion and consensus reached as to whether it should or should not happen.
The power that exists at the moment goes back a very long way to the 1907 Act. Section 21 states that a local authority requires two-thirds of the number of ratepayers and those liable to pay council tax in any street to have voted in favour of the street name alteration before it can be made. That exists as one route to change, so there is not a problem that there is no power to change street names and there is not a problem that street names might be changed over the heads of residents without them being consulted. The Minister may say, “Ah, but there’s a second way that councils can change names”, and that is true—but if you simply want to give more power to residents, just insist that all councils have to use the 1907 regulations; do not waste time in this Bill introducing what is in front of us today.
My second question to the Minister is: what has proved to be the harm or defect in the current arrangements in Section 21 of the 1907 Act? Everybody  agrees that sometimes changes are needed. It might be because language changes and the street name is clearly now just plain offensive. I have a practical personal example. In my area, going back to before 1907, the inhabitants of a place called Bullock Smithy decided that it would be appropriate to get a different name for their area. They petitioned the local council, and it was agreed that the place could change its name from Bullock Smithy to Hazel Grove. Hence, I became the MP for Hazel Grove, not the MP for Bullock Smithy. It is helpful to know that at that time there was no Secretary of State to write regulations. It was perfectly competent and possible for a whole community to change its name, and street names are surely rather smaller beer than that.
The current practice is that, if residents want a change, they normally get some sort of petition together and a bit of publicity and talk to their local councillors or send a letter to the town hall. The town hall would have some sort of consultation and the name would be changed or not changed. Of course, there are considerable barriers to changing a street name, such as inconvenience to business. I mentioned Savile Row. I dare say businesses in Savile Row would not be very pleased about having the name changed because it is part of their brand to be in Savile Row. There is also a cost to residents and the friends of residents who have to change all their address books. If the council wants to recognise a newly found hero or perhaps some Roman coins, as the noble Baroness said, evidently in Stevenage you put them in the next street you develop; you do not change an existing street name. I would have thought that that is what 99% of councils would do if they had an Olympic winner, for example in cycling. Let us mention Stockport in particular, as we have plenty of them. We do not rename streets; we name new streets for our Olympic winners.
That touches on a point that the noble Baroness raised. I think this is something that has come out of a pigeonhole. I think it has probably come out of a pigeonhole at CCHQ, and it has been there since the 1960s when Conservative MPs were screaming their heads off because roads were being named after Nelson Mandela. I have to say that some of those same MPs came to Westminster Hall a few decades later to give a round of applause to the Nobel Peace Prize winner Nelson Mandela. There are fashions in these things in the Conservative Party as well as fashions in culture.
The delegated regulation book brings me to the next point. What assessment of the number of local authorities where disputes have arisen has the Minister made? Is this an entirely fabricated case or is there actually a real case, or two or three real cases, that the Minister could relay to your Lordships? I note that in the delegated regulations book—which is quite a slender document, just 400-odd pages—there is a page on the amendments here. It refers several times to the public consultation of 22 May on how the regulations under this new provision might be conducted. Now I have done a fair amount of reading on this, but I drew the line at finding out whether that consultation had actually been published. My question to the Minister is straightforward: has that consultation been published and what were the responses to it? Did it get the very big raspberry that it thoroughly deserved?

Lord Scriven: Raspberry Walk.

Lord Stunell: My noble friend suggests that Raspberry Close might be what we have as a future name. This provision illustrates everything that is wrong about the Government’s approach to levelling up and this Bill. First, it removes an existing power of councils to do exactly what the Government say they want to control. It adds bureaucracy and cost, and it puts in a new procedure which is not needed at all but, just to be clear, is a centralised new procedure. The word “regulation” appears eight times in 42 lines.
It is a make-work clause for people in Whitehall. It serves no practical purpose, but it goes down to the smallest detail in the text. For instance, Clause 77(3) states that, the name having been changed, a local authority may put up a sign. That is a pretty good point; I am glad they did not overlook that. What kind of sign? Well, it can be “painted or otherwise marked”. Yes, that is another good point. I am glad they did not overlook that. Where can it be put? It can be put on
“a conspicuous part of any building or other erection”.
Is this not getting down to the absolutely absurd? Of course, at first I was worried that trees were not included in the places where you could fix a sign—but then I realised that the Minister would tell me that trees will be covered in regulations. In fact, the whole clause is covered in regulations. The whole Bill is covered in regulations. The only consolation I get out of this is that we have not yet been given the department’s list of approved street names—but possibly the Minister will tell us that that is going to come on Report.
This is an unnecessary clause: it is poorly drafted and dripping with red tape and the Minister should take it out of this Bill and let us focus on the real task of levelling up, to which it contributes in no way at all.

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle: Well, my Lords, follow that. After that devastating forensic analysis explaining exactly why Clause 77 should not stand part of the Bill, I rise briefly to add a couple of additional points to the arguments just presented. I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, that this clause should go altogether, but I also understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, is trying to ameliorate the mess to some degree. But I think it is clear that getting rid of the clause altogether is by far the best option, and I note that the Local Government Association has expressed its concerns about it.
I want to add one case study, one piece of analysis and one warning for the Minister and the Government in general. The case study concerns what has happened not with a street name but with a similar story in Stroud. There is what has been described as “an offensive racist relic” clock that glamorises the slave trade. When this became an issue, the council started an eight-week consultation. Some 1,600 people in a town with a population of 13,500 responded to that consultation; 77% said that the clock should be taken down. This is an interesting case study. One issue is that the clock is on a building owned by a trust. It is possible that the Secretary of State may have to be referred to on whether the trust is allowed to have this  clock, which the people of Stroud have expressed their desire to see removed. This is my cautionary warning to the Government and the Minister. Do Ministers really want to get tangled up in these stories and issues?
Maybe they do, which brings us to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, about the purpose of this clause. It would appear that the purpose of the clause is that Ministers can be seen to take a position; that is surely a very bad reason to write law. The other case study warning, which has not been mentioned here but should be, concerns Bristol and the Edward Colston statue. That was a demonstration of what happens when public opinion is not listened to and when there is a strong clinging to tradition. As other noble Lords have said, times have moved on and things put up in the past are now offensive. People will take things into their own hands. It is clear that these are local issues that should be decided at a local level, and the Government really should not be sticking their oar in.

Lord Scriven: My Lords, I rise briefly to continue the absurdity that my noble friend Lord Stunell spoke about. Clause 77(6) says:
“An alteration has the necessary support for the purposes of this section only if … it has sufficient local support”—
so one needs to determine what is “sufficient local support”—

Lord Stunell: It is in the regulations.

Lord Scriven: Indeed. It continues
“where it is an alteration of a specified kind, it has any other support specified as a pre-condition for alterations of that kind.”
We then move on to Clause 77(7) and, as my noble friend Lord Stunell just said from a sedentary position, it seems to be in the regulations. It says:
“Regulations may provide that sufficient local support, or support of a kind specified under subsection (6)(b), can only be established in the way, or in one of the alternative ways, specified in the regulations.”
These regulations should make provision for a referendum and, according to Clause 77(8)(a), should specify
“the conduct and timing of a referendum and who is entitled to vote”.
So it may not be the whole street; it may be part of the street, the street next door or a few streets next door. Clause 77(8)(b) goes on to say, interestingly, that the regulation may say that it may not be a 50:50 percentage split, or 51%. It says that the regulation will set
“a specified percentage or number of those entitled to vote in the referendum”
and
“a specified majority of those who vote indicate their support for the alteration”.
Clause 77(8)(c) goes on to say that, following the first voting event, at another specific time, through regulation, a second vote could be held, or it could be determined that it could be part of the street or the whole street that then gets voted on in a second referendum.
I totally agree with my noble friend Lord Stunell: this is a most ridiculous clause. It should not stand part of this Bill. It has nothing at all to do with localism. The 1907 Act allows exactly for a street vote to take place if it is required. It seems that the right honourable Oliver Dowden MP in the other place let the cat out of the bag on what the issue is. I do not think it goes back to Nelson Mandela, but to a four-letter word: “woke”. Oliver Dowden said recently that this should stop people getting rid of historical names and putting in “woke” names.
This is a culture war in a Bill; it should not stand part of the Bill. It is not a problem that has been defined. The 1907 Act already determines that this can take place. Doing this through centralised regulations in such a prescriptive way is not what levelling up or devolution are about.

Baroness Fox of Buckley: My Lords, in the interests of some balance, while I have no idea what Clause 77 is doing in the Bill—I agree with the objections that have been raised; it is far too prescriptive—I thought it might be worth noting that, in Haringey where I live, over £100,000 was spent on renaming Black Boy Lane as La Rose Lane. That was due to concerns that the old name had racist connotations. However, it is disingenuous to talk about the idea that this was based on local consultations. The council did launch a consultation after the death of George Floyd but, since then, it has admitted that a significant number of residents of the street objected to the idea. Its inbox was full of messages from people objecting to the name change but it decided to carry on regardless.
The culture war is not so much in the Bill as in society. I do not think it is fair to say that this is all to do with Oliver Dowden playing the woke card, because there are real issues happening on the streets of  the UK.

Lord Scriven: Will the noble Baroness accept that I said that this clause was based on what Oliver Dowden said? It was a direct quote. Would she also agree that the example she gives could be dealt with if the 1907 Act were deemed to be appropriate for all street name changes and the 1925 Act repealed? Then there would not be a need for this clause at all—the 1907 Act allows for street name changes with votes.

Baroness Fox of Buckley: It is true that I am not familiar with the 1907 Act in detail, if at all. It is also true that I did not introduce the subject of Oliver Dowden or the term “woke”; I was responding to the comment that was made. I would just like to carry on, as this bit of what I am saying is important to the Bill.
Sometimes people speak on behalf of local democracy and actually the problem is that what passes for local democracy at the level of consultations is often faux and sham consultations, and local people feel aggrieved. In Haringey, there has been a big row about whether the name even has racist connotations. Local people have put forward all sorts of ideas that it was to do with chimney sweeps or was based on King Charles II   —all sorts of things. Local supermarket owner Ali Demirci has been going round asking people what they thought the original name was. Whereas the council seem convinced it is racist, local people do not necessarily.
The bit where levelling up comes in is as follows. Carol Lee, who has lived on the road for 35 years and has mixed-race children, was quoted in the Guardian as saying:
“I’ll have to change my driver’s licence, and that’s £40 alone. You have to look after your money these days”,
as well as saying that she objects and that this has been imposed, and so on. Graffiti has been put up on the changed sign and signs put up in windows with the original name on them.
I was simply making the point that, although I do not think this Bill is the right place to deal with it, I  do not think there is nothing to be dealt with. As to the Colston statue question, it would be wrong if, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, suggested, we took to pulling down statues that we disagreed with because things did not go our way. I think that would be a destructive conclusion to reach.

Lord Lansley: My Lords, before my noble friend responds to the debate, I want to ask a couple of questions. I do not want to get into the detail of the public health Act, although I might say to the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, who quoted marking and painting, the text here is simply the same as the public health Act, so I do not think the draftsman can be criticised too much for incorporating some of the original drafting in the process of rewriting this bit of legislation.
I have two questions. First, subsection (10) of this clause says:
“No local Act operates to enable a local authority within subsection (1)(a) or (b) to alter the name of a street, or part of a street, in its area.”
That relates to a district council or to a county council for which there is no district council. Are there any such local Acts? I was not clear what the import of this is, and whether there are local Acts that have given this power and they are being disapplied by this provision. I wondered whether my noble friend knew whether there were any such local Acts.
Secondly, I did not give him notice of this question, but I am asking my noble friend if he will be kind enough to see what the department’s view is on it. If one knows Cambridge at all, one knows that to the west of Cambridge there is a new town called Cambourne. I was the Member of Parliament there when it was first proposed and, in the original naming process for what were then three linked villages, it was intended to use the name Monkfield, since they were actually built on land that was called Monkfield farm.
However, the local authority discovered that it had no power to determine what the name of a new village or town would be. Presumably, the legislation, except in the context of development corporations, never believed that local authorities would be naming new villages or towns that were put on to greenfield sites by private developers. As it turned out, the private developer had the right in law to determine the name Cambourne, which it chose using Cambridge and Bourn, a local  village. Everyone is perfectly happy about that now, but at the time it was questioned whether it was appropriate that a local authority could name streets but could not name a town. That is a curious situation for us to have arrived at.
As it happened, the local authority subsequently came up with the excellent name of Northstowe, which I think slightly reflects the point made in the other amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, since it used the name of the hundred within which the town subsists—namely, Northstowe—which historically had never been applied to a specific village or town, so a historic name was able to be given a modern usage. Fortunately, that worked okay without anyone having any problems with it. The question is: should the local authority have such a power and, if not, is this worth thinking about at some point?

Earl Howe: My Lords, I shall focus straightaway on the provisions of Clause 77 in the round, in response to the concerns and questions that have been raised by the noble Lords, Lord Stunell and Lord Scriven, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Taylor and Lady Bennett.
Clause 77 creates a requirement for the necessary support to be obtained for any changes to street names. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, asked why the Government have included this clause in the Bill. I was grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. I must repudiate the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, that this has something to do with the culture wars. The answer is that it addresses the issue that, in some places around the country, there has been considerable concern and disquiet where councils have taken it upon themselves to change the name of a street without any meaningful consultation with local residents.
Under the available legislation, which noble Lords have rightly said dates from the early 20th century, any council has the power to change the name of a given street without consulting the residents in the street. The provisions of the Bill will ensure that, instead, local residents will be properly involved in changes to street names that affect them—changes that, as we have discussed, can alter the character of their area. Street names are often an intrinsic part of an area’s heritage, cherished by the community for their history and representation of the place. Changing names involves both practical costs for residents and businesses and social cost to the community. We are clear that these costs should be borne only with the consent of those affected.
How that should be attained will vary according to the nature of the street and its importance in the community. A one-size-fits-all approach would be insufficient to properly allow the views of the community to be determinative. The clause will unify the approach to how changes to street names are made where currently the rights of the community depend upon where they live and, outside of London, the decision of the local authority as to how involved or not the community should be.

Lord Scriven: I totally follow the logic of what the Minister has just said, but would it not be the case that a solution would be, rather than a new provision,   to revoke the part of the 1925 Act that a council can adopt, which says there should be no vote, in favour of saying that all councils must adopt the 1907 Act, which says there must be a vote?

Earl Howe: The problem is that there are, I am advised, three Acts of Parliament that date from the early part of the last century, and that has led to a confusing mix of provisions across the country. Many provisions are over a century old, as I say, and there is no transparency over which Acts apply where. We thought it simpler to take the opportunity to be clear in this Bill that there should be more local determination of these issues. The current legislation is antiquated in its drafting, apart from anything else, so this updating is intended to make the process clearer for local authorities. All that should make the process for renaming a street more democratic and ensure that the voices of the local community are genuinely heard.
Amendment 173, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, would add additional criteria for local authorities when considering the renaming of a street. We entirely agree with the noble Baroness about the importance of history, archaeology and culture in this process. The last thing we want is anodyne street names divorced from the character and history of the area. However, as I have made clear, the Government are strongly of the belief that the final say on changes affecting street names should lie with local people. We fully expect those local views to reflect the historical or cultural associations of the names concerned and the importance that communities place upon them.
The amendment would create a duty on a local authority to consider the historical, cultural or archaeological significance of a name change. It is not clear that a free-standing additional requirement of that kind is necessary, nor is it clear how that duty would work alongside the provisions of the Bill. It could, for example, make it harder to secure name changes that had local support but where new considerations, such as the need to honour a local person or event, took precedence over an archaeological interest. We saw some Olympians having streets named after them following the 2012 Olympics.
It is for this reason that, with the aim of being helpful to local authorities, the Government would be minded to set out in statutory guidance how factors such as the history and culture of the area should be considered in bringing forward proposals for street name changes under this clause. We have consulted on the prospective secondary legislation and guidance  to deliver these changes, and respondents were over-whelmingly positive about our proposals: 91% of respondents agreed that regulations and statutory guidance should set out how local authorities should seek consent when changing a street name. In view of that support, and of the fact that heritage and cultural significance are matters that local communities are best placed to weigh up for themselves, I hope I will have persuaded the noble Baroness that the amendment is not necessary.

Lord Scriven: The 1907 Act is very clear. It is not antiquated or in any way there to be debated. The 1907 Act power may be exercised only with the consent  of two-thirds of the non-domestic rates payers and council tax payers in a street. That is what the Act says. What is it about the 1907 Act and that provision which seems to be non-democratic and does not give the power to the people on the street to make the change?

Earl Howe: Because it is a one-size-fits-all approach and our judgment is that that is not an appropriate prescription for every situation.

Lord Scriven: The noble Earl is therefore saying that in one street it could be 51% and, in another street, maybe a couple of streets away, it has to be 75%. Is that what the noble Earl is saying? The provision in the 1907 Act is very clear. It gives a provision of what needs to happen and a percentage of the vote required to change the name. Is he saying that different streets need different percentages of the votes to change the street name?

Earl Howe: We cannot, at this stage, prescribe particular percentages to particular situations. This is to be worked through in regulations and guidance, which was, as I emphasised, the approach that respondents to the consultation felt was right: we should not be unduly prescriptive in primary legislation, but rather allow for some flexibility at local level depending on the situation under consideration.
I turn to Amendment 175 in the name of the noble Baroness. As I outlined, our view is that local people should have the final say on these matters, particularly, as the noble Baroness’s Amendment 173 demonstrates, when it comes to their local heritage. In this context, I agree with the underlying intent behind this amendment. There should be clear processes for making sure that views from all relevant groups that might be affected by a street name change are taken into account. It is, however, important that we do this in the right way so that the processes are robust but can be adjusted if needed.
The approach in these amendments would be prescriptive and would limit our ability to go further than simply consultation by making local views determinative, as the clauses do at present. But I want to reassure the noble Baroness that we will be setting out clear, transparent and robust arrangements in secondary legislation, as we set out in the consultation I already mentioned. In addition, by setting out the detail for how consultation on street naming will work in regulations and guidance, we can maintain flexibility to update processes in line with different local circumstances and changes such as new technology. I hope these remarks are helpful in explaining the Government’s approach to what is a sensitive issue.
My noble friend Lord Lansley asked whether there were any local Acts of Parliament that might affect this issue. I am advised that the Oxfordshire Act 1985 might be relevant here. I think I had better do further research for my noble friend to find out whether there are others—but that was the advice that I have been able to receive.
On his other question of the power to name new villages, I have no direct experience of this. My understanding is that what normally happens is a   conversation between a private developer and the local authority and an accommodation is reached. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, who clearly has direct experience of this, is shaking her head, so I do bow to her experience. It would seem appropriate that I look into this further and write to my noble friend once again.

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part. I thought this would be quite a short debate, but you never know here, do you? I am also grateful to the noble Earl for, as usual, a very thoughtful and considered response to the debate.
Our contention in tabling the amendments in this group was that the Government’s introduction of this clause to the Bill was kind of bizarre in a way. We have looked at some very key strategic issues in the debates already—we are likely to come to more in the days in Committee to come—around local finance, business rates, environmental issues, affordable housing and so on, and found that there is not as much in the Bill as we would like to see on those. However, what seems to be an issue covered by previous legislation and seems for the most part to be managed perfectly well in local areas—there may be some notable exceptions—gets a whole clause in the Bill.
I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, for his careful evisceration of the clause—that is what it was. He used the term “a clause in search of a problem” and asked the clear question: what is the problem here? He also referred to the impact statement having no reference to this clause. I think the idea is that there may be—let us face it, there probably are—some councils around the country which either insist on name changes that have not got public support or resist name changes that have. But the existing powers, as has been consistently referred to through the debate, require a consultation of ratepayers to vote in favour of a name change, so it is difficult to see where the push comes from.
I know that this issue causes a great deal of concern in local areas if there are things that have gone wrong, but surely the pressure on a democratically elected council would be to make sure they had their residents alongside them if they were going to present a change of name, not to push against that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, talked about the LGA supporting getting rid of this clause. I noted that from the LGA’s briefing. The idea that people really want to get tangled up in these issues in Parliament is odd, to say the least, as far as I am concerned.
The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, talked about measuring sufficient local support. Leaving this to regulation seems, again, to be a huge sledgehammer to crack a nut. If we are going to have regulations around the conduct and timing of a referendum and what percentage is going to get us over the line in terms of what we call our road, that kind of centralised direction has no place in a Bill that is supposed to be concentrating on devolution. I do not want to get caught up in the issue around roads in Haringey particularly. It may be in that case that the consultation did not take place; I do not know.

Earl Howe: I do not think the noble Baroness has understood the issue. This has everything to do with devolution; that is the whole point of the clause.

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage: Well, I think that regulating to the extent of telling where signs can be put and whether they should be painted or printed really is against the spirit of devolution.
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, made good points on what powers local authorities have to name which things. We should not avoid the fact that private developers will of course choose to name things in a way that they think will help them to sell properties in an area. They will choose either road names or settlement names because they think it is in their interest and will help to sell properties. If we are to have this clause—I assume we will, because I doubt the Government will withdraw it—we need to think about this as well. Areas should be named according to some kind of local connection, whether it is history or individuals connected with the area—my second amendment refers to this—and I do not think that this should be entirely in the hands of developers.
I have not changed my view on this clause. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, that it does not have much of a place in the Bill, but if it is going to be in there, when name changes are made we need to think about what the connections are. I am grateful for the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, on this. We also need to think about proper public consultation on matters such as this. If it has to be in the Bill, so be it, but local authorities have managed this perfectly well so far and there is no need for a clause such as this in a broad-ranging, strategic Bill. That said, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment 173 withdrawn.
Clause 77 agreed.
Amendments 174 and 175 not moved.
House resumed. Committee to begin again not before 8.30 pm.

Health and Disability White Paper
 - Commons Urgent Question

The following Answer to an Urgent Question was given in the House of Commons on Thursday 16 March.
“Yesterday, the Secretary of State published Transforming Support: The Health and Disability White Paper. This White Paper is a significant milestone, demonstrating the Government’s commitment to ensuring that disabled people and people with health conditions can lead independent lives and fulfil their potential. It sets out an ambitious policy reform package that will transform the health and disability benefits system, and help disabled people and people with health conditions to start, stay in and succeed in work.
We will deliver action in three ways. First, we will transform the future benefits system so that it focuses on what people can do, rather than on what they  cannot, including by removing the work capability assessment. In our new system, there will be no need to be found to have limited capability for work or work-related activity in order to receive additional income-related support for a disability or health condition. We will introduce a new universal credit health element that people receiving both personal independence payment and universal credit will be entitled to, which will enable people to try work without the fear of losing their benefits. We will roll this out carefully from 2026-27, and we will ensure that no one currently on universal credit and with limited capability for work or work-related activity will lose out once they move on to the new system.
Secondly, while de-risking work is one side of the coin in supporting disabled people and people with health conditions into work, we know that we also need to provide more employment and health support for this group. The White Paper sets out how we will introduce a new personalised approach to employment support and engagement, with the aim of helping people to reach their potential and live a more independent life. We are investing in additional work-coach time and tailored support. The Chancellor also set out yesterday that we will introduce a new programme called universal support, which will provide wraparound support for individuals and employers, as well as additional money to provide more mental health and musculoskeletal treatment for this group.
Finally, we will ensure that people can access the right support at the right time, and have a better overall experience, by testing new initiatives to make it easier to apply for and receive health and disability benefits. I am certain that our White Paper reforms will support more people to reach their full potential and reap the health and well-being advantages of work.”

Baroness Thornton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for taking this Question. The PIP assessment is designed for a totally different purpose from the work capability assessment, so my first question is this: how will the Government reconcile those two completely different systems? What will happen in future to people who do not currently receive PIP—those on the limited capability for work and work-related activity element of universal credit—and particularly those with short-term and fluctuating conditions? Unless it is the Minister’s intention that some 750,000 people will lose £350 a year, an alternative needs to be in place. What would that alternative be and what would it look like? Finally, do the Government believe it is fair that the hundreds and thousands of people with disabilities that prevent them even engaging in work-related activity should receive less financial support through universal credit than people who are entitled to PIP? If so, what is the basis for that justification?

Viscount Younger of Leckie: I will attempt to answer the noble Baroness’s questions. However, I start by saying that,   as she will know, these reforms are the biggest undertaken in a decade and have been years in the making, with our initial paper having gone out for a consultation  in 2021.
The main answer is that we are very much focused on ensuring that more people are supported into the workforce so that they can enjoy the positive impacts of work, through a more simplified system. I turn to improving our services, which is probably at the heart of the noble Baroness’s question, in focusing on PIP. Putting aside the delays, which I realise we are making progress on, employment and health discussions, which are being tested at the moment, are led by healthcare professionals and focus on how we can help people to overcome their barriers to moving towards work. Furthermore, we have the enhanced support service and the severe disability group for those with the most severe health conditions, and we are developing the skills of our assessors to match people’s primary health conditions. These are game-changers and mark a significant change from the current system.

Baroness Brinton: The Minister said that this White Paper has taken a long time to get here, but the rollout will not start until 2026-27, so I really hope that the Minister will provide assurance that a lot of the concerns raised by the disabled community will be addressed before it starts to roll out. Plenty of people would fall through the cracks—they are currently not receiving PIP but they are going through the WCA process—so what happens to them? The Chancellor said, with a great flourish, that sanctions will be “applied more rigorously” to people without a health condition, but many disabled people do not have a health condition, so what happens to them? The current level of sanctions causes distress and worse: the Government know that Jodey Whiting killed herself after her benefits were wrongly cut off, and the DWP was found guilty of five serious failings in her case. What will the Government do to ensure that benefits are not cut off from disabled and vulnerable people?

Viscount Younger of Leckie: I will quickly pick up on the noble Baroness’s point about the Jodey Whiting case. Our sincere condolences remain with Ms Whiting’s family. The department is ready to assist the coroner with their investigation, but, as the noble Baroness will expect, I am not able to comment on active legal proceedings.
On the noble Baroness’s point about timings, we are deliberately rolling out this new definitive programme over a number of years, which will allow us to look at those who might fall through the cracks, as she put it. There is a lot of work to be done between now and 2027-28. The main thing is that we are investing in employment support for disabled people and people with health conditions, and we are stepping up our work-coach support across the country. That perhaps plays into another question: this takes time to put into place, but we are already recruiting for new work coaches, we are extending the work and health programme, and we are rolling out our new in-work progression offer to help people in work on universal credit.

Lord Bellingham: My Lords, occupational health services up and down the country obviously play a vital role in helping disabled people to stay in work and in their quest to get back into work. However, large firms that have HR departments and other resources find it much easier to access occupational health services than small businesses and micro-businesses, so what can the Government do to help them? Also, am I right in saying that there is a national shortage of occupational health professionals? If so, what will the Government do about it?

Viscount Younger of Leckie: My noble friend makes a good point: small employers are five times less likely to provide access to occupational health services than large employers. Only 19% of SMEs provide occupational health services for their staff. Bearing in mind that, as I said, this must be a game-changer, we have a number of supporting initiatives in place: developing the test for a financial incentive and market navigation support for SMEs and self-employed people; working with the occupational health sector to identify better ways to support development; and delivering a £1 million fund to stimulate innovation in the occupational health market.

Baroness Lister of Burtersett: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asked about sanctions, but I do not think that the Minister answered her, so perhaps I will ask the question in a different way. Can the Government guarantee that work-related activity will be voluntary for those receiving the health element?

Viscount Younger of Leckie: It will be, but, as I mentioned to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, we have a number of matters to work through, which is why I have said that it will take time. Sanctions are part of this: for example, in November 2022, the universal credit sanction rate was 6.51%. Sanctions underpin conditionality and are a key part of a fair and effective welfare system, so it is right that a system is in place to encourage claimants to take reasonable steps to prepare for and move into work. We need to keep our eye on this.

Lord Addington: My Lords, this is an odd White Paper because it misses out a whole chunk of the system: the link between education and benefits. The Government have just produced a paper that says they are going to do much better at identifying special educational needs. Here, I should remind the House of my interests. Reference is made on page 12 to all the neurodiverse groups. You would expect these to manifest in the education process. How are they going to go through? Are the Government requiring an education and healthcare plan? Will there be some other form  of identification? How is this to be done? This is a long-standing problem that means assessors and lawyers make money. Can the Government tell me how they will disappoint these groups?

Viscount Younger of Leckie: The noble Lord is right that this is another area we need to focus on, particularly those with neurodiversity issues or, indeed,  autism. We have made progress in seeing more disabled people in employment but, as he will know, progress is not even. Groups such as autistic people are still showing very low employment rates—for example, only around 26% of working-age autistic people are in employment—so there is much work to do. This will be a factor in what we look at over the next few months and years as part of these new initiatives.

Baroness Hollins: I am glad that the Minister mentioned autistic people. How will the proposals in this White Paper impact on people with learning disabilities? They probably have the lowest rate of successful employment of any group, with some 6% or fewer of adults in employment, and it is difficult to see how such a complicated system is going to help them. Can the Minister help?

Viscount Younger of Leckie: I hope I can help the noble Baroness by saying two specific things. She will know that we have the national autism strategy, which was launched in 2021. As to what we are doing now with the recent announcements, it is very important to highlight our Disability Confident programme. It is incredibly important that we work ever harder to persuade employers to take on those with these conditions, because there is no doubt that many of them are able to work and can offer huge benefits to employers. This disability gap needs to be closed.

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle: My Lords, having spent years of my political life supporting disabled people campaigning against the dreadful Atos and its application of the work capability assessment, I find myself with some surprise echoing the concerns we have heard from all sides of your Lordships’ Chamber about this proposal. My question to the Minister is a fairly simple one. James Taylor, chief executive of Scope, said in responding to this White Paper:
“The Government has got a mountain to climb to win back the trust of disabled people.”
Does the Minister agree with that assessment?

Viscount Younger of Leckie: I certainly do not. Having said that, we are not complacent. There is an awful lot we have done, some of which I have mentioned already, for the disabled cohorts, and it is incredibly important that we do even more to encourage those who are disabled to come into work. Having produced some surveys, we know already that 20% of those who are disabled want to work, and actually,  4% of that 20% want to work right now. So there is an awful lot we can do, but the picture the noble Baroness has painted is neither fair nor accurate.

Social Security (Additional Payments) (No. 2) Bill
 - Second Reading (and remaining stages)

Viscount Younger of Leckie: Moved by Viscount Younger of Leckie
That the Bill be now read a second time.

Viscount Younger of Leckie: I am delighted that we have the opportunity today to discuss this important legislation, which will make a huge difference to millions of families. This Government fully understand the pressures that households across the UK are experiencing as we continue to face the challenges of high inflation brought about by global issues such as the war in Ukraine and the legacy of Covid. The Prime Minister has set out our ambition to see inflation halved this year, easing cost of living pressures and increasing financial security for families. The Office for Budget Responsibility is now forecasting that CPI inflation will fall to 2.9% by the end of 2023.
Nevertheless, short-term challenges remain, so it is vital that the Government continue to take a responsible and disciplined approach to public spending while supporting vulnerable people and protecting vital public services. This is why we are taking this further decisive action, as announced by the Chancellor last November, to help families through this difficult period. The measures we have taken over the last year demonstrate that this is a Government who will always protect those who are the most vulnerable to changing economic conditions.
To give some context before I turn to the specific provisions of the Bill, it is our firm belief that the best way to help people to improve their family’s financial circumstances is to support them to move into and progress in work. The measures we took to protect millions of jobs over the pandemic are just one example of the extraordinary interventions by this Government to maintain a strong labour market. There are almost 1 million fewer workless households compared with 2010, and unemployment is close to a 50-year low  at 3.7%. But with 1.12 million vacancies, our focus remains firmly on helping people take advantage of these opportunities. The core support provided in our jobcentres, including the new in-work progression offer, builds on these priorities.
Noble Lords will have heard the Chancellor announce a range of employment measures in last week’s Budget that will provide further support to help people enter work and increase their working hours. This includes extending childcare support so that eligible working parents in England will be able to access 30 hours of free childcare per week for 38 weeks of the year from when their child is nine months old. For those on universal credit, childcare costs will be paid in advance when parents move into work or increase their hours, with an increase to the childcare cap to £951 for one child and £1,630 for two children.
To further support low-paid workers, we are making the largest ever cash increase to the national living wage from April: an increase of 9.7% to £10.42 an hour. This represents an increase of over £1,600 in the annual earnings of a full-time worker. Also, from April more than 10 million working-age families will see their benefit payments rise by 10.1%, nearly 12 million pensioners will see a 10.1% increase to their state pension, and we will increase the benefit cap levels by 10.1%. Helping people to improve their living standards through work will always be our overriding priority,   but it is also right in these challenging times for the Government to step in and provide additional support, especially for our most vulnerable citizens.
In 2022-23 our substantial package of cost of living support provided help through the energy price guarantee, the household support fund and the initial tranche of cost of living payments for those on eligible means-tested and disability benefits. The energy price guarantee offered much-needed support for rising energy bills. As noble Lords will have heard last week, the Chancellor announced that we will maintain the energy price guarantee at £2,500 for a further three months from April 2023. We made over 30 million cost of living payments to those who needed them most in 2022: £650 was made available to households on means-tested benefits; £150 payments were made available to those on eligible disability benefits; and there was a £300 top-up to winter fuel payments to more than 8 million pensioner households.
The household support fund, distributed by local authorities in England to help households with the cost of essentials, has been providing support since 2021. We have announced a further extension for the next financial year. Local authorities have accountability for supporting households in the most need, particularly those who may not be eligible for the other support the Government have recently made available. The devolved Administrations will receive Barnett consequentials to spend at their discretion and with their local knowledge.
I turn now to the specific details of the Bill. Noble Lords will note that this is a narrowly defined Bill with one very simple aim: to get financial support to those most in need. It gives the Government powers to make vital cost of living payments of up to £900 for more than 8 million households on eligible means-tested benefits and £150 payments for more than 6 million people on qualifying disability benefits—worth around £8.6 billion in 2023-24. These are tax free and not subject to the benefit cap, so people will receive every penny of these payments, which will be made automatically, so no one will need to apply.
These payments will be made across the UK. We are legislating on behalf of Northern Ireland, as we did with the 2022 payments; this approach has been noted in an exchange of letter by the respective Permanent Secretaries. The Secretary of State has obtained formal Cabinet clearance to legislate without the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly, given that there is currently no sitting Assembly or caretaker Minister for Communities.
This Bill replicates the successful and straightforward approach that enabled the Government to make cost of living payments this financial year while maintaining core benefit delivery. We recognise that keeping the policy simple means that some people may miss out. This is one of the reasons for making three separate payments: to reduce the chance of somebody missing out completely. There is also the wider package of support that I have touched on already, including the household support fund.
These payments are a crucial measure of support, demonstrating this Government’s commitment to helping those most in need. This Bill gives much-needed financial  security and support for the most vulnerable during this period of higher inflation, through hundreds of pounds given directly to millions of families around the United Kingdom, and I commend it the House.

Baroness Lister of Burtersett: My Lords, it would be churlish not to welcome this Bill, which will bring much-needed support to those who qualify for the payments it provides. However, I am sure the Minister did not expect unqualified praise from me. The qualifications are twofold: they concern context, or rather a different take on context from the Minister’s, and the shortcomings of one-off payments.
With regard to context, I will not repeat the arguments I made during our recent debate on the uprating regulations, covering the cuts in the real value of benefits since 2010, the current freezing of the local housing allowance, which we will be debating on Wednesday, and the impact of the much higher inflation rate suffered by those on low incomes when the price of basics such as food and fuel is going up faster than average prices. However, I want to go back to the point about claimants having had to struggle this past year on benefits uprated by only 3.1% when inflation was expected by the OBR to average 10.1% over the period. We were told last year not to worry as it would all be smoothed out in the subsequent uprating, but since our debate last month I have seen the following warning from the Institute for Fiscal Studies:
“Astonishingly, it is not until April 2025 that benefit rates are set to recover the ground they lost … due to lags in uprating them with inflation”.
I am sure the department will have seen the IFS pre-Budget briefing in which this was stated, so I would welcome the Minister’s comments on this warning.
This brings me to my second qualification, because no doubt he will respond that the one-off payments will help bridge the gap. But using one-off payments rather than an additional uprating to weekly benefits, to help those on low incomes cope with the cost of living crisis, has a number of limitations, as was made clear during the passage of the Bill in the Commons. A general point, made by the Work and Pensions Select Committee last year, with reference to the last set of cost of living payments, is that
“regular, predictable income”
rather than lump sums is
“better for households trying to manage a budget”.
In other words, a regular income does a better job of providing the financial security that social security is supposed to provide. However, the Government did not heed the committee’s call for options other than one-off payments to be prioritised in future. Instead, other than a small but welcome tweak, they have simply replicated the approach taken last year, with all its limitations. One of these, highlighted by the Treasury Select Committee, is the “cliff edges” it creates so that
“those who earn one pound too much, or become eligible for a benefit one day too late, may not receive it”.
As a result, some of those on low incomes will lose out, with
“implications for fairness, and … work incentives”,
as the committee pointed out. The committee therefore recommended a payment each month for six months, but it seems that “the computer said no” and the only concession has been the tweak that replaces the original two payments with three—mentioned by the Minister.
Unfortunately, some of those “cliff edges” are created by the rigid operation of universal credit’s monthly assessment period, which means some universal credit recipients do not receive the benefit for one month because of the way their wages are paid. Other problems raised in the Commons debate concerned the self-employed, pursued by Conservative Sir Robert Neill, and those who have been sanctioned. According to the Bill’s impact analysis, 7,000 households lost out on the first of last year’s cost of living payments solely due to a sanction.
Nigel Mills MP, a Conservative member of the Work and Pensions Committee, tabled an amendment with Sir Stephen Timms, its chair, that would extend the qualifying period from one to two months, making it less likely that someone would lose a payment arbitrarily. He made, in my view, a very strong case, pointing out that it would be more consistent with universal credit’s objective that work should always pay. He also pointed out that the current rules put UC recipients at a disadvantage compared with those still receiving tax credits, which was unfair. He made a similar suggestion last year, so there was plenty of time for it to be considered.
I found the Minister’s reasons for rejecting the amendment, which referred to
“administrative challenges such as out-of-date contact or bank details”
and extending the time
“between eligibility and payment”—[Official Report, Commons, 6/3/23; col. 99.]
less than convincing. Perhaps the Minister today could make a better fist of explaining why what seemed to me a perfectly sensible amendment was rejected. To say breezily, as the Secretary of State did, that even if someone loses out on a payment because of qualifying period anomalies, there will be one or two others they may qualify for coming along, suggests a complete lack of understanding of how every pound can make a difference when someone is struggling to make ends meet.
Another problem with the way that these one-off payments have been structured is that a single person gets the same amount as a family with children. The Minister in the Commons did at least acknowledge the point, but said they could not find any better solutions. Once again it would seem that policy is driven by technology rather than the other way round. When Barnardo’s finds that almost a quarter of parents polled struggle to provide sufficient food for their child—just one example of the impact of the cost of living crisis on families with children—surely everything possible should be done to ensure that children are adequately protected. Surely this group fits the Minister’s description of those most in need.
Another group in vulnerable circumstances who are losing out are carers not in receipt of means-tested benefits, just as was the case last year. According to Carers UK there are several hundred thousand carers  in receipt of carer’s allowance who do not receive means-tested benefits, many of whom are facing serious financial stress. Carer’s allowance is paid at a lower rate than equivalent benefits, yet carers do not qualify for a cost of living payment akin to the disability additional payment included in the Bill—why not? Why are carers being ignored in England when in Scotland and Wales additional provision has been made by their respective Governments?
The stock ministerial response, which we have heard again this evening, to all these criticisms is that those who do not benefit from the payments in the Bill can turn to the household support fund, which has been extended for a year, which is of course welcome. However, a discretionary cash-limited fund is no substitute for reliable payments as of right. In the Commons, Nigel Mills was pretty dismissive of this stock response, pointing out:
“It is far better practice to make the laws we pass work, than to have discretionary funds to try to fix things.”—[Official Report, Commons, 6/3/23; col. 87.]
Both he and Sir Stephen Timms were sceptical that many constituents would know about the fund and would realise they could apply to it if they failed to qualify for a one-off payment even though they were struggling. The Minister tried to reassure them by referring to
“strong communications and engagement with local authorities for anybody who may be missing out”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/3/23; col. 98.]
Could the Minister give us more information on what exactly the Government will be doing to increase awareness of the fund and its availability in such situations?
A note on the fund from Citizens Advice suggests a degree of growing awareness as more people claim help, but it also indicates a number of barriers to accessing it and difficulties where help is provided by way of vouchers rather than cash. It raises a number of issues with the eligibility criteria, with some local authorities applying more restrictive criteria than others and many rationing access or running out of money. Inevitably, given its discretionary nature, there is something of a postcode lottery. Ultimately, Citizens Advice concludes that the fund is not really suitable to deal with a situation in which huge numbers of households are finding themselves with incomes that cannot stretch to cover their outgoings. CA advisers commented:
“It’s just a drop in the ocean … a very small sticking plaster on a very big wound.”
At the end of the Commons consideration, the Minister said that the DWP
“is planning an evaluation of the cost of living payments … we will consider what further information we can release in future.”—[Official Report, Commons, 6/3/23; col. 101.]
Can the Minister, either now or in a letter, give us more details of that evaluation and an assurance that its findings will be published? We cannot amend this Bill, but given that this is the second year running in which we and colleagues in the Commons have criticised the approach taken, at the very least we can hope that questions will be answered and that the evaluation will lead to lessons being learned.
I have one final practical question. Organisations on the ground are urging the Government to name the date of the first instalment to help struggling families budget. The DWP has responded that it will be in the spring and that specific dates will be confirmed closer to the date. Given that today is the spring equinox and, officially, it is spring until June, can the Minister at the very least tell us whether it will be early, middle or late spring, to give struggling families a little bit more certainty?

Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I also welcome this measure. Very briefly, I will touch on three points: current plans for tackling anomalies arising from the Bill; the task of achieving better longer-term solutions; and finally, in that connection, taking proper note of what works best in other countries.
The Bill’s eligibility criteria are commendably simple. As my noble friend the Minister has observed, these can enable payments to tens of millions of people in a timely way, thus also reducing adverse effects from otherwise more complicated legislation such as unnecessary levels of delay, error and fraud.
Yet, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, indicated, there are still inconsistencies—not least that emanating from what in this case are flat payments. For here, the proposed disbursements would be the same regardless of household size, even though larger households have higher spending needs, particularly those with children. The latter stricture also reflects another mismatch between this Bill and universal credits, which are higher for couples than for single people, and children are also recognised in that system. Then there is the so-called cliff-edge problem, caused by the cost of living payment being linked to receipts of means-tested benefits, meaning that a person who earns just £1 above the limit could lose out on £900.
First, among the recommendations of the Treasury Committee is to provide a greater number of lump-sum payments than the two in 2022-23. This would help ensure that more households have support when they need it most, while reducing disincentives to work within each relevant assessment period. The second recommendation is to deploy the payment model used in the energy bill support scheme; that is a payment each month for six months, thus enabling regular help over the colder winter period. Thirdly, in advance of future adjusted methods of support, it recommends that the Government assess the work disincentive effects of different sizes and frequencies of lump-sum payments. The fourth recommendation is to judge whether a taper might better incentivise work as part of any subsequent payments from 2024-25. Does my noble friend assent that these four prescriptions for improved and adapted delivery should now be followed?
Also, further to assist better longer-term solutions, does my noble friend concur that constant and proper study must be made by this country of what works best in other countries? The United Kingdom plays an active part within the intergovernmental European Committee for Social Cohesion of the Council of Europe. That committee facilitates dialogue and the exchange of best practice. It is particularly relevant to  this debate, since through Covid and the Ukrainian war all other 45 states within the human rights affiliation of the Council of Europe share with the United Kingdom the same challenge and priority within their set-back economies: the protection of vulnerable people and families.
I am grateful to my noble friend for affirming within the Explanatory Notes of this Bill that, under Section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998, in his view the provisions of the Social Security (Additional Payments) (No. 2) Bill are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights of the Council of Europe.
In this connection, it should be recalled that over 60 years ago the United Kingdom ratified the European Social Charter of the Council of Europe. Your Lordships will be aware that, since then, the UK has accepted all provisions in the fields of health, social security and social protection. The only exceptions are Articles 12.2, 12.3 and 12.4 on the right to social security and Article 4 of the additional protocol on the right of elderly persons to social protection. The adoption of the Social Security (Additional Payments) (No. 2) Bill now provides us with a good opportunity also to accept Article 12 of the European Social Charter and Article 4 of its additional protocol. I hope that my noble friend may be able to agree to that.

Lord Shipley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction. I noted everything that he said, but I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, that, while it would be churlish not to welcome the Bill, such a welcome must be qualified. A year ago, as she reminded us, there were lots of objections—including from me—to the level of the increase, particularly in view of the rising rate of inflation and its projected peak.
As the Minister said a moment ago, the aim is to get financial support to those most in need. I think that is an objective we would all subscribe to. However, while the Bill helps over 8 million families across the country at a time of rapid increases in the cost of living, some households are excluded from support. One category is sanctioned universal credit recipients, the vast majority of whom have missed an appointment for a variety of reasons. To qualify for the cost of living payment, a claimant has to be entitled to some payment, however small, in the month preceding the qualifying date for that additional payment. If they are sanctioned, they have no payment, and yet those people have an underlying entitlement.
It was estimated that, last year, well over 6,500 households across the UK did not receive a cost of living payment. This problem was known about a year ago, and I find it surprising that a solution has not yet been found by the department because the people who are affected by this are, by their very nature, vulnerable. It is difficult to see why this problem needs to exist when solutions are available. Why can the qualifying period not be extended from one month to two? That way, those who enter employment with an immediate increase in pay would not receive the payment but those who do need it would get it. Is it necessary to add to the problems of a universal credit recipient who  is already sanctioned by giving them the additional penalty of being disqualified from the extra payment during a cost of living crisis? I do not think it is right for a universal credit recipient to be punished twice.
Further, what are the Government’s plans to help those with fluctuating incomes, such as receiving a one-off bonus in the qualifying period? I recall the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, saying that, in the Commons, there had been a debate about the qualifying period and the number of payments; it was suggested that if there were three payments in the course of the year then, broadly speaking, that would reduce the chances of success of someone losing out. The difficulty is that some did lose out in the last year—some 6,500 households did. It seems that the simpler answer is to move to a two-month qualifying period. Can the Minister give an explanation as to why that does not seem to be on the Government’s agenda?
I remind the Minister that it was a year ago that these issues became clear. I feel that the opportunity was there then to address some of those concerns about the Bill. Is there any procedural override within the system—perhaps at a local level—to help those who are facing substantial financial pressures?
Finally, the point has been made about the start date for the first instalment. I find it very odd that that date is still not publicly known. Over the weekend, I saw in the press that this matter has been questioned. If I was on a very low income and was very dependent on the support, I would really want to be able to plan better than people are currently able to. I hope the Government can give some reassurance on the matter this evening.

Baroness Thornton: I thank the Minister for his introduction to the Bill. I also thank my noble friend Lady Lister for her contribution, which makes my job of inadequately filling in for my noble friend Lady Sherlock much easier. My noble friend posed many of the key questions, which I will try not to repeat.
On these Benches we of course welcome this Bill for what it is, and for the much-needed help it will provide to families up and down the country who are encountering some of the toughest financial conditions in a generation. The OBR has confirmed that the hit to living standards over the past two years is the largest since records began: inflation in recent months has reached a 40-year high; food rose by 16.8% over the past year to January 2023; gas and energy prices have risen to levels we would have thought unthinkable only two years ago; and wages, which are lower in real terms than they were 13 years ago, are expected to remain below 2008 levels until 2026. The gap between income and expenditure for many people who were already struggling before has now hit breaking point and is causing very real hardship.
Those in receipt of benefits and pensions are some of the hardest hit. Although the payments in the Bill recognise this fact, taken alone they represent a highly inadequate one-off provision that simply will not touch the sides of the deep crisis forcing families to choose  between food and heating, and wrecking the physical and mental well-being of families up and down the country.
The Bill is rightly being criticised in the same way that its predecessor was, with the addition of how disappointing it is that the Government have not addressed the issues that Members across both Houses raised last time, and which have been raised again by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and my noble friend Lady Lister in their speeches. Last year, the previous Minister argued that help needed to be delivered swiftly. If the Government are committed to bringing short-term support through this one-off provision, they should have taken the time to bring in changes to make the support more effective this time round. They could also tell us when the first payment might be due.
A flat payment cannot take into account a range of circumstances that effect someone’s needs, with household size being the most obvious one. Children in larger families are at far greater risk of living in poverty. Over the summer, academics at the University of York estimated that 90% of large families would be experiencing fuel poverty at the start of this year. The cliff edge involved in these payments, which has been referred to by my noble friend, is also incredibly concerning.
Linking this cost of living payment to the receipt of means-tested benefits means a sharp cut-off for anyone earning above the limit. Being £1 over the threshold should not mean missing out on £900; that is a huge disincentive for people who might otherwise look to take on more hours or look for better-paid work to lift themselves off universal credit. The number of payments was increased from last year from two to three, but has the Minister considered increasing the spread of payments further in order to reduce this cliff edge?
The Bill will not sew up the holes growing ever larger in our social security net, but the £900 will be welcomed as an increase on last year’s payment. However, the £150 payment for those in receipt of certain disability benefits has stayed the same, despite the huge increase in inflation. Can the Minister explain why this payment has not also been increased?
There are other good questions about the Bill that need to be and have been raised. Having a one-month assessment period for recipients means some may not qualify in a specific month—which I think has also been referred to—because of the way they are paid. This same issue was raised last year with the previous Bill. Does the Minister have any information from last year on how many people who are paid every four weeks missed out last year on receiving payments because of the short assessment period? Does the Minister have a similar answer for those who are self-employed but will miss out because of the operation of the minimum-income floor? Again, this was raised last year. We were told that the payments were an admittedly blunt instrument that needed to be got through quickly—that argument works less well a year later.
These payments are welcome as a one-off help, and so we are happy to support them in that capacity, but we need to make it crystal clear that they are not a long-term solution that will reform our social security  net, address our broken labour market and fix the dire living standards that are dragging families down. Anything less is simply papering over the cracks.

Viscount Younger of Leckie: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contribution to today’s debate. This is significant legislation that will provide support to low-income and vulnerable households across the country, and I am delighted at the progress we have made today to move this Bill forward. I start by echoing the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, about the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock;  I too wish her a very swift return.
I am grateful for the support—perhaps qualified support would be a better way of putting it—from Peers for today’s Bill. The cost of living payments we are providing for will make a significant difference to the lives of low-income families across the country. Millions of people on means-tested benefits will soon gain from the first payment, in the spring. I will pick up on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, as to when the first payments will be made. They will both be disappointed because, although I cannot give more detail today, I can assure both Peers that we will release details of when we plan to make payments to the vast majority of recipients on GOV.UK when these are available. Perhaps I can be helpful by saying that we aim to do this very soon.
I recognise that we may not always agree on the detailed design of the payments, but I know that we are united on the need to take action to support people with the increased costs of living. Our priority has always been to safeguard the swift and accurate delivery of these payments to those who need them. I will pick up on some points made by several Peers, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, who asked about the adequacy of what we are doing. She will know that inflation is forecast to remain high in the next few months, which means that many people will continue to need additional support with the cost of essentials. The Bill will enable the delivery of very significant additional support worth almost £9 billion in 2023-24.
It is important to remember that these payments are just one element of the measures announced by the Chancellor in November and in the Budget last week. We intend to uprate benefits and the state pension by 10.1% from April and to increase the benefit cap by 10.1%, as the House will know. In the Spring Budget the Chancellor set out a package of measures designed to support people to enter work and increase their working hours, including an increase in childcare support and doing more to close the disability employment gap, which I alluded to earlier this afternoon.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, raised the £900 payment, and I want to follow up on that. The cost of living payments are one part of the package of support, as I have mentioned, which includes, as I have not said yet, maintaining the energy price guarantee  at £2,500 for a further three months from April, and  the extension, as mentioned earlier, of the household support fund.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, asked an important question about those with fluctuating earnings and who are assessed monthly. Whichever eligibility period is chosen, there will always be some people who will not qualify during that period. That is why we decided to deliver the cost of living payments for means-tested benefit claimants in three separate payments over the 2023-24 period, to reduce the chance of households missing out altogether, which is a theme I may well return to.
We have carefully considered the position of those with fluctuating earnings. Unfortunately, it is not feasible to distinguish between people with permanent changes to their earnings and those with temporary fluctuations due to non-monthly earnings; for example, those who are paid on a four-weekly basis.
My noble friend Lord Dundee and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, raised a number of issues relating to the payments. On the flat-rate payments, it may be helpful for me to explain that these payments are being made using the department’s ad hoc payment system, which has some limitations, including that it can make only one payment “type” at a time, of a single value. In practice, staggering payments according to household size would be administratively challenging and would delay making payments to millions of vulnerable people. Of course, families on means-tested benefits will gain from our planned uprating by 10.1% from April. This includes families who are subject to the benefit cap, which is also increasing by 10.1%, as I mentioned earlier. As I have said, for families who need additional help, we are extending the household support fund in England throughout 2023-24.
I will touch briefly on carers, raised, I believe, by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. I, too, recognise the vital contribution made by those who care for some of the most vulnerable in our society. We are focusing support on those carers who need it most. Around 480,000 carer households on universal credit already receive around an extra £2,000 a year through the carer element. I therefore encourage all carers on a low income to check that they have applied for all the benefits they are entitled to, including means-tested support. Although carer’s allowance is not a means-tested benefit, we know that 60% of working-age carers who receive carer’s allowance also claim an income-related benefit; this means that they should also be eligible for the cost of living payment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, raised the issue of communication. The household support fund guidance makes it mandatory for local authorities to make public their plans for the scheme, including how and when they will deliver the application-based element of their provision. As she may know already, it is also mandatory for local authorities to establish a dedicated and accessible webpage on their main authority website which sets out the details of their local scheme. I hope this helps the noble Baroness.
On the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, about addressing the so-called hard edges, noble Lords said that we have had plenty of time. They will know that in 2022, we delivered tens of millions of payments   successfully by keeping the rules for these payments as simple as possible. Although we have carefully considered our position on these issues for 2023-24, any major changes would introduce complexity, risking delays to payments, or introduce unacceptable levels of fraud or error. That is a really important point to make.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, stated that our support is too late. I acknowledge that many families have struggled this financial year with the 3.1% uprating, but the Government have made substantial support available to households this winter. This includes, as mentioned earlier: the energy price guarantee, which has been extended; the £400 discount provided through the energy bills support scheme; the £324 means-tested cost of living payment made in November; the £300 top-up to winter fuel payments; and, as mentioned—I will mention it once more—the household support fund.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, raised some other points about the payments. I think I have answered this point, but there is a very good reason why we are splitting the three payments for people on means-tested benefits, which is—as I mentioned to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley—to ensure that we cover those who are missing out. That is an incredibly important point to make.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, asked about extending the eligibility period. Extending the window extends the amount of time between eligibility and payment. In this period, some people will experience changes of circumstance, including some who will permanently increase their earnings and will now be ineligible for means-tested benefits unless they are in need of support. That is the answer I would give to her.
I have answered the question on flat-rate payments.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, asked why we are excluding those with no universal credit award due to a sanction; I think that the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, also raised this issue. They will both know that people are sanctioned only if they fail, without good reason, to meet the conditions that they agreed to. These sanctions can often be resolved quickly by claimants getting in touch and attending their next appointment. If someone with no universal credit award due to a sanction re-engages with us, they may get one of the later cost of living payments. I should make the case, however, that it is down to individuals to be in touch on a regular basis and to make sure that they can keep their appointments.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, asked about the evaluation. I know that she has asked about it before in previous debates in this House; I note her eagerness to see it. We are still in the planning stages of our evaluation. We will come back to the House as soon as possible with further detail; I am afraid that that is the very best I can do this evening.
My noble friend Lord Dundee and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, asked about splitting the payments; my noble friend indicated that this was suggested by the Treasury Select Committee. I may have covered this earlier, but we need to balance spreading support across the year with ensuring that we have enough time to deliver each payment without compromising core benefit delivery. As mentioned earlier, these payments   are being made using our ad hoc payment system; that is perhaps a different way of saying the same thing, but I appreciate noble Lords’ questions.
I hope that I have covered the majority of the questions that were asked. As ever, I will look closely at Hansard to make sure, as I always like to do, that answers have been given to all the points that were raised.
To conclude, let me say that, as I said at the outset, I believe that this Bill provides substantial cost of living support, as announced by the Government over the past year, and the additional support announced at the Budget. It demonstrates our ongoing commitment to supporting the most vulnerable in our society. I am very pleased that we can now move quickly to start making these vital payments. Once again, I commend this Bill to the House.
Bill read a second time. Committee negatived. Standing Order 44 having been dispensed with, the Bill was read a third time and passed.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill
 - Committee (6th Day) (Continued)

Amendment 176

Lord Moylan: Moved by Lord Moylan
176: After Clause 77, insert the following new Clause—“Traffic emission road charging schemes(1) This section relates to schemes under which drivers are charged for using roads within a specified zone (affected roads) according to the traffic emissions of the vehicle concerned.(2) A devolved authority may only introduce such a scheme if, before the scheme is introduced, consent to the introduction of the scheme is granted by all local authorities which have affected roads within their boundaries.(3) In considering whether to grant consent under subsection (2), the relevant local authorities must have regard to their duties in relation to air quality under section 83A of the Environment Act 1995 (duties of English local authorities in relation to designated areas).(4) Where consent is sought under subsection (2), the question of whether to grant consent must be considered by the relevant local authority in full Council.(5) Where such a scheme has been introduced by a devolved authority before the coming into force of this section, the devolved authority must request consent to the continuation of the scheme from all local authorities which have affected roads within their boundaries.(6) In considering whether to grant consent under subsection (5), the relevant local authorities must have regard to their duties in relation to air quality under section 83A of the Environment Act 1995 (duties of English local authorities in relation to designated areas).(7) Where consent is sought under subsection (5), the question of whether to grant consent must be considered by the relevant local authority in full Council.   (8) Where consent is sought under subsection (5) and not granted, the devolved authority must cease to implement the scheme within three months of the decision not to grant consent.(9) In this section—“devolved authority” means—(a) Transport for London,(b) the Mayor of London, or(c) the Mayor of a Combined Authority;“local authority” means—(a) a district council,(b) a county council, or(c) a London borough council.”

Lord Moylan: My Lords, in moving Amendment 176, I will speak also to Amendment 178B, both of which are in my name; I am grateful to the noble Lords who have given them their support.
In our discussion of the Bill, we have had much debate on the powers of mayoral authorities and the balance between upper-tier authorities—local authorities, regional authorities and mayoral authorities—and those lower down the chain. These amendments continue that debate in a different way. With noble Lords’ agreement, I will start by speaking to Amendment 178B; I will come to Amendment 176 after that.
Amendment 178B is very brief and technical but has quite a lot of effect. It amends the Greater London Authority Act to allow the assembly to amend the mayor’s budget by an absolute majority, rather than requiring a two-thirds majority, as now. Although it is drafted to apply to London, if granted this would have a wider effect, because there are other metropolitan mayoral authorities with similar arrangements for the scrutiny and passing of a mayoral budget. I will speak about London, from my experience, and the other matters can be taken later.
When the Blair Government set up the Greater London Authority through the 1999 Act, they were wedded to the idea that it should have a very strong mayor—a sort of Nietzschean super-figure bestriding the capital and, crucially for our purposes, able to impose his or her own budget on London, even if opposed by a majority in the elected assembly. No reason was ever given for this, as far as I understand, and it entailed a significant denial of the norms of democracy. When he was mayor, Ken Livingstone, who had a certain sense of irony, used to sit in the public gallery of the assembly when his budget was being debated. Every time he lost a vote and there was a majority against, he would give a little chuckle and declare a triumph, because although 50% or even 60% of the members were voting against that provision in his budget, it had no effect because they could not achieve a two-thirds majority.
When it was set up, it was explained that the Greater London Authority’s powers were strictly limited to it being a strategic authority for London; it was not meant to be a delivery authority. The mayor did operate four functional bodies in addition: Transport for London, the Metropolitan Police, the fire and rescue authority and the London Development Agency. Although the architecture around the development agency later changed slightly, that position remained.  However, the powers of the mayor have increased very significantly. As the Government have made clear in discussion on this Bill, the intention is to increase the powers of mayors in other parts of the country as part of their devolution and levelling-up approach.
We are seeing mayors accumulate more powers and larger budgets. For example, the Mayor of London is now responsible for the housing budget for London, which is billions-plus. These powers are being accumulated but the co-decision and scrutiny functions that go with them are not being kept up to date. In fact, the Government recognise this. It may not be government policy yet, but I even saw in a newspaper that the Government were speculating on increasing the scrutiny of elected mayors by setting up panels of local MPs to scrutinise what they were going to do. There is no need to do this: the assembly exists. The scrutiny body is there already: it needs empowerment, which this amendment provides. I am putting a burden on my noble friend by inviting her to explain why we should be denying democracy in our great cities and urban areas—such a burden that quite possibly she will decide to agree with me. I look forward to that very much indeed.
Turning to the question of balance of powers, we come to Amendment 176, which is drafted to cover the whole country and is not specific to London. However, I will speak of it in London terms because of my own experience and allow noble Lords to draw parallels with other areas. It relates to the ULEZ charge—a power the mayor has in fact had since the foundation of the Greater London Authority; road user charging was in the Greater London Authority Act as far back as 1999. It has been expanded in geographical terms. Under Ken Livingstone, it was small and very focused. There was a low emission zone around Heathrow Airport and a congestion charge around just the very centre of London. It has been expanded to include not only inner London, which has already been delivered, but outer London as well—the current proposal—into areas wholly different from inner London and best understood by their own elected councils. Yet, they have no say.
This amendment would give councils that say, not just in London but in other parts of the country. It would give a power of co-decision with local councils in the extension of a road user charging scheme—ULEZ in this case. It would require that that decision be made in full council. It would not be a decision of the executive arm—for example, the cabinet or the locally elected mayor. It would also be retrospective, so that existing schemes would have to be subject to such a vote in order to continue. It would also ensure that local councils have regard to their air quality duties under the Environment Act when making their decisions. Nobody is in favour of poor air quality; it is a question of how to get there.
Of course, Londoners and those in adjacent counties value clean, healthy air, but they are groaning under the proposed burden of a rushed ULEZ imposed during a cost of living crisis. A wholly inadequate scrappage support scheme is attached to it which, in  large parts of outer London, is not strictly necessary because of their very different, almost rural characteristics. This is evidenced from TfL’s own impact assessment of what ULEZ is going to achieve. Residents look to their local councils to express their voice. Our job is to empower them to do this.
This measure is supported by members of the Liberal Democrat party and Liberal Democrat councils, and the ULEZ proposal has been opposed publicly by Labour Party Members of the other place. I hope that my amendment will command the widespread support of your Lordships’ House, not least of the one party not mentioned so far—the Conservative Party—when my noble friend comes to reply. I beg to move.

Lord Tope: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, not least for taking me down memory lane. He began by describing the Greater London Authority Act. I had the honour, and sometimes the pleasure, of taking that Bill through this House from the Front Bench, along with my noble friend Lady Hamwee. I remember the debates very well indeed. The noble Lord’s references to the prospective Mayor Livingstone were slightly wide of the mark. As I recall, the then Labour Government were terrified of the threat of Mayor Livingstone—and it was a threat as far as they were concerned. We spent much of our debate on the Greater London Bill discussing measures to reduce his powers. However, we should not divert too much into history.
I welcome Amendment 178B, on the budget. As it happens, when we were doing the Greater London Bill, I was the leader of a London borough council. I was certainly the only council leader in the Lords, and perhaps the only one in Parliament at that time. I went on to lead the Liberal Democrats on the Greater London Authority for its first eight years. I remember only too well the first eight years of Mayor Livingstone’s budget. Never once did he come close to getting majority support for it. It was always passed, because it had to be, but always without the two-thirds majority to amend it.
That has continued to be the case throughout the life of the Greater London Authority. In both of the last two years, in the preceding debate on the budget—it is a two-stage process—there was not even majority support for the mayor’s budget. When it came to the all-important final decision, a two-thirds majority was not there. So I entirely support what the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, said about the need for some democracy there and that the practice for majority support for a budget should apply, as it does virtually everywhere else.
I move now to what I call the ULEZ amendment, although it is not strictly speaking a ULEZ amendment. The expansion of the ULEZ to outer London is hugely controversial in outer London at the moment.  I should declare an interest, as I was a leader of a London borough council for 13 years—incidentally,  a London borough council that has been under Liberal Democrat control for the last 37 years and has won the last 10 elections with a majority, so we must be doing something right there.
ULEZ is hugely controversial and is causing a lot of upset. This amendment is not about the particular proposals for its expansion; it is more about the relationship between the London boroughs and the mayor. That needs to work on a form of consensus. The mayor has the strategic authority, as you cannot deal with a subject as important as air pollution on only a borough-by-borough basis. It must of course be dealt with on a London-wide basis, in this case, so from that point of view I am wholly in agreement. However, the borough and the borough councils have to do the mechanics and implementation, and they are getting most of the heat from the objections here.
I could all too easily divert myself into talking about the shortcomings of the mayor’s present proposals, but I do not want to. I say that as someone from a council that strongly supports any measures that will genuinely reduce air pollution and tackle that issue. But the way the consultation was conducted and the way the implementation is being proposed owe everything to the mayor’s awareness of the timetable he has to meet before the next mayoral election—he wants the expansion firmly embedded in good time before May 2024—and nothing to good common sense.
This amendment is actually about the relationship between the Mayor of London and the borough councils, particularly their leaders. I was very much minded to put my name to this amendment, but I did not do so and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, knows why: I think that proposed new subsection (2) is wrong. It says that
“before the scheme is introduced, consent to the introduction of the scheme is granted by all local authorities”
within the affected area. That gives any one authority the power to veto, in effect, the whole scheme. That is simply wrong.

Lord Moylan: With every possible respect for the noble Lord, would he accept that it would in fact allow the mayor to tailor the scheme to include those boroughs that are willing to have it and exclude those that are not? It would not veto the entire scheme for other boroughs that wished to see it implemented as the mayor had proposed.

Lord Tope: My Lords, I accept that a mayor, were he or she so minded, could act in that way. However, I have to say that the current mayor has shown no interest whatever in conceding anything to any of the boroughs, let alone to one single borough. We could get to a state in which the mayor allows one borough—I will not name one, although Bromley comes to mind, remembering the trouble we had with the introduction of the Freedom Pass—to opt out and the mayor could accept that, but I would not want to put that responsibility on some future mayor.
It would be much better if we stuck to the majority principle that we were talking about just now; the boroughs should have the right themselves to opt out of the scheme. I would hope that they would not do so, but they could have the right to opt themselves and their area out of it, but not the right to either stop it for everywhere else or rely on the benevolence of the mayor—little of which we have seen recently—to opt  that borough out. So a much better way would be to reword the amendment. I suspect that the noble Lord is not going to press this to a vote tonight, although a lot of people in London think he is: much better that we come back on Report with clearer, better wording to try to achieve what we want to do.
I think, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, said, that what this amendment is actually about is the relationship between an executive Mayor of London—in a sense, a presidential system—and the borough councils, which are essentially a parliamentary system. Nobody has given enough thought, and there are many other examples, to how we match the mismatch between a presidential and parliamentary system. We have a situation now where the boroughs are all, in a sense, elected parliamentary bodies, with borough council leaders playing an increasing role through London Councils in the running of London, and a presidential-style elected mayor who has all the power vested in the mayor, with none vested in the boroughs and none, for that matter, vested in the London Assembly either. I say that with some regret after serving as an assembly member—indeed, as the leader of the Liberal Democrat group there—for eight years.
I hesitate today to ask for a reconsideration of the government of London—I am not sure I would want to go through all of that again—but that is, in essence, what this amendment is about. If we can agree a slightly different form of wording for this to come back on Report, I should be happy then to give it my support.

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle: My Lords, I rise to speak only to Amendment 178B, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, in the interests of embracing an extraordinarily rare consensus. It would be ideal, for the Green group, for my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, former London Deputy Mayor and long-time London Assembly member, to be here, but unfortunately she is otherwise engaged, so you get me, a resident through many of the years that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, was talking about. I say “embracing a rare consensus” with enthusiasm, because I was buoyed last week by the fact that we saw the Government table their own amendment to the UK Infrastructure Bank Bill following a Report stage at which the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, had put down an amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and I had both signed it, and that actually ended up in law. So, you never know; maybe the same kind of unusual consensus of the noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Greenhalgh, the Greens, the Lib Dems and others all backing Amendment 178B might get to the same outcome. We can but hope.
I think the case has already been very strongly made for this: this is democracy. But I just want to make one additional point, which is that the London Assembly is, of course, elected through a proportional system, so the majority there reflects the views of the majority of the public. That is unlike local authorities, which are elected by first past the post systems yet need only a simple majority to overrule the administration’s budget.
We heard a lot in our debates on the Bill earlier today about tidying up and fixing up past inequities and infelicities; well, this would be a real democratic addition and a real tidying up. I entirely back the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and all the others who have signed this amendment. Let us see where we can get with it.

Baroness Fox of Buckley: My Lords,  I rise to support Amendment 176, in particular,  in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Greenhalgh. Beyond the focus of the amendment on low emission zones, I think in this Bill—which promotes, after all, outsourcing a range of decisions to greater numbers of local and regional bodies—one area where local authority decisions are clashing not just with mayors but with local citizens, in terms of their needs and wants, is in restricting and controlling people’s car use and movement, in the name of tackling the supposed triple threats of air pollution, climate change and congestion.
Instead of improving mobility infrastructure, it seems to have become policy to restrict the use of the infrastructure that already exists and to limit travel choice options. During the pandemic, scores of low-traffic neighbourhoods, for example, were introduced using bollards, planters and camera enforcement to block through traffic in residential areas. They were introduced by councils of all political shades to encourage people to walk and cycle instead of using their cars. There has been quite widespread public disquiet and growing protests against these town hall impositions.
An example of the effect that they can have is 53 year-old Christiane Comins, who has multiple sclerosis. Although a blue badge might make her exempt from the proposed LTN in her neighbourhood, Barnsbury, she explains:
“Because I’m disabled, I’m not only reliant on taxi journeys to and from the hospital but also reliant on friends coming to visit me … I am reliant on food deliveries to the house.”
An LTN will stop these. Meanwhile, Nicholas Mason explains that how long it takes him to pick up his granddaughter in Tottenham has tripled. We can talk about levelling up, but we have to consider when decisions such as these are having such a negative impact on ordinary people’s lives. It is those sorts of stories that give us the context for an increasingly hostile public reaction to clean air zones wherever they are being implemented, not because people do not want clean air but because of the problems democratically.
Amendment 176 addresses the important democratic deficit in terms of the clash between the London mayor and local authorities which might well be opposed to the expansion of, for example, the London ULEZ, which has been explained very well by previous speakers. This is not a technical matter of a clash between local councillors and Sadiq Khan, and it is certainly not party political. I think that is an important thing to stress. These clean air zones are happening all over the country, and they are controversial with the public all over the country. As with all broader traffic schemes, public consultations are often ignored, and that is gnawing away at faith in local democracy and devolved bodies, and we should take account of that.
This tussle between whether individual boroughs need to give TfL permission to install cameras, to allow roads to be charged and so on, and whether the mayor has the right to overrule dissent and force unpopular decisions on residents in a wide range of boroughs needs to be addressed in a Bill that is proposing more mayoral powers and more devolved bodies because I think that faith in local democracy is at stake.
One thing I found galling was when Sadiq Khan recently proclaimed at the Partnership for Healthy Cities Summit held at the St Pancras Renaissance Hotel:
“I stood for re-election. I received more votes than any sitting mayor in [the] history of [UK] elections, so the silent majority are with me in relation to the ULEZ”.
The slightly inconvenient fact is that the expansion to cover all Greater London was not included in Mayor Khan’s 2021 election manifesto. We also now have a legal challenge after it emerged that the mayor’s officials secretly ordered hundreds of numberplate-reading cameras worth £15 million in April 2022, a month before 60% voted to reject the ULEZ expansion in May. This is after accusations of voter gerrymandering, where, for example, 5,200 votes from those supporting the FairFuelUK campaign were not even counted. It is no wonder that people feel that these traffic schemes are accompanied by sham consultations, and as this whole Bill is dependent on saying that it is giving ordinary people more control, we need to consider the consequences of those who consider that they know better ploughing ahead regardless.
Then there are the embarrassing recent revelations about the Birmingham clean air zone. Again, this is not party political. I note that this clean air zone was championed by the Conservative mayor, Andy Street. We now know that one in 20—up to 50,000—fines has been successfully challenged, and the council has backed down and scrapped penalty charge notices after motorists refused to pay because they believed the fines were unfair. That was only to the end of 2022. A further 20,000 have not even been pursued by the council. Despite this, the council still expects to make a whopping £50 million profit by the end of 2023. At a local rally in Birmingham last week organised by local campaigners and the campaign group Together, this was denounced as a stealth tax. However, Birmingham City Council justifies these profits and zones by saying that it is about improving air quality in the city.
In London, Sadiq Khan boasts that his ULEZ requires vehicles to
“meet the toughest emissions standards enforced by any major city in the world”
and claims that 4 million people now breathe cleaner air and that toxic air has been reduced by 50%. Indeed, the mayor has a forthcoming book called Breathe aiming to help create a world where we can all breathe again. TfL’s director of strategy and policy goes further, claiming:
“Thousands die prematurely each year as a result of toxic pollution and it causes children to grow up with stunted lungs and increases the risk of dementia”.
I am afraid there is a danger that we end up with scaremongering misinformation to justify these clean air zones. According to government statistics, between  1990 and 2008, PM10 has declined by 53%; black smoke emissions have declined by 85%; carbon monoxide by 69%; nitrous oxides by 49%; methane by 53%; and lead by 98%. Of course, we all want clean air, but we do not want scaremongering.
Distorting the data and evidence to justify political behaviour change and amass money for municipal coffers is a real threat to any faith in democracy— which I thought the Bill was trying to promote. It is also worrying to read in the Times that the traffic counters being used to monitor the impact of low-traffic neighbourhoods—which are cited by councils to show success and are the primary source of data in academic studies cited by the Department for Transport—are, in fact, faulty, misleading and underreporting.
Yet, on this sort of dodgy evidence, those paying the cost are those who can least afford it. The Mayor of London’s office will pocket £400 million per year by expanding ULEZ, but this is a raid on household budgets. In this levelling-up Bill, it is those on the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum who are less likely to be able to upgrade their vehicles and far  more likely to own older vehicles. They may be people like Steve Cowan from Dagenham, who notes:
“I’ve just spent five years paying off the truck on finance and working my arse off, then they bring this in.”
As his mum lives in a care home in Chingford, he says
“I’ll have to pay the fee whilst going back and forwards to see her … I also work on the other side of the water in Erith and will have to pay £12.50 every time I leave my door.”
Meanwhile, a self-employed carpenter from Eltham is in despair and speaks for so many when he says:
“I can’t afford to buy another vehicle … the ULEZ is just a way to make money.”
Jeremy Hunt told us last week that his budget would save the average driver £100 next year, but that £100 will be spend in two weeks travelling into a ULEZ zone, and in three weeks in Birmingham’s clean air zone. In the process, this is creating public cynicism about the motives, with few convinced that this is anything to do with clean air. It is also undermining relationships between many members of the public, as well as between local and regional democratic institutions. Amendments 176 and 178B go some way to rebalancing these arrangements, but my main concern is to restore some public faith in local democracy.

Baroness Pinnock: My Lords, I want briefly to point to what I regard as the principle behind all the discussion that we have had tonight; that is, the difference between the powers of the London mayor and the way they were established, as opposed to those of combined authority or metropolitan district council mayors being established by the Bill.
There are lessons to be learned. All through the debate on the devolution clauses in the Bill, some of us have been consistent in pointing out that mayors attracting more individual powers to themselves—by adding the roles of the police and crime commissioner and fire and rescue, for example—will end in tears, as will this. Our local democracy depends on hearing the voices of, in this case, other borough leaders—and, in the case of combined authority mayors, of leaders in  those areas and others—and then coming to a decision based on what they have heard. The minute you get individuals who believe they can make a decision without reference to the views of others, trouble ensues. I urge the Minister to refrain from those aspects of the Bill that seek to accumulate power to a single person. It may look good on paper, but it will not work well in practice.

Baroness Hayman of Ullock: My Lords, this has been an interesting short debate. I will concentrate on Amendment 176 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan—and I thank him for clearly introducing both his amendments—because I want to focus on why traffic emissions are so problematic and on the issues around air quality, which basically underpin what we are talking about here.
As we have heard, the amendment proposes that a devolved authority—Transport for London, the Mayor of London or the mayor of a combined authority—could introduce a road-charging scheme only if all local authorities with roads in scope consented to the scheme. We also heard from the noble Lord, Lord Tope, about concerns regarding a potential veto on this, and I agree with him on that.
For road-charging schemes already in operation, however, it occurs to me that consent would need to be retrospectively sought, which is also a concern. If consent were not granted, the local authority would have three months to end the scheme. In considering whether to grant that consent, local authorities, as the noble Lord said, would need to have regard to their duties relating to air quality as defined under the Environment Act 1995.
Noble Lords have mentioned the Greater London Authority Act 1999, under which transport is a devolved matter—in London, primarily the responsibility of the mayor and Transport for London. They have the power to make decisions relating to road-charging schemes such as the one that would be affected by the amendment. The road network does not align with borough boundaries, of course, so it is not possible to implement road-charging schemes based on which boroughs support them. That is one of the reasons why Parliament granted the power to make decisions on London-wide road-charging schemes to the mayor. The Government have said that there are no plans to review the provisions within the GLA Act, and I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that today.
The ULEZ scheme has been mentioned, and that would clearly be affected by the amendment if it went through. It is worth noting that 85% of vehicles seen driving in outer London already meet the required emissions standards and therefore would not be liable for the new charge. As I said at the beginning, though, I want to look at air quality, particularly around related illness and death from air pollution.
In 2019, figures say that toxic air contributed to more than 4,000 premature deaths in London. I am aware that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, queried some of the figures and statistics around deaths and  illness from air quality. Much of the information on deaths linked to air pollution comes from the World Health Organization. There has also been a Lancet commission on pollution and health. I would like to quote from the section titled “Pollution-related death”:
“In 2019, pollution was responsible for approximately 9∙0 million premature deaths”—
this is not just in England; clearly it is worldwide—
“Air pollution … remains responsible for the greatest number of deaths”.
I think it is really important that we put that into the context of this amendment.
The greatest number of deaths attributable to air pollution in London were in the outer London boroughs mainly due to the higher proportion of elderly people in these areas who are more vulnerable to the impacts of air pollution. If no further action is taken to reduce air pollution, recent statistics expect that around 550,000 Londoners will develop diseases related to poor air quality over the next 30 years. If you then think about the cost to the NHS and our social care systems, just in London, it is estimated to be around £10.4 billion by 2050. Over 500,000 Londoners suffer with asthma and are therefore more vulnerable to the effects of toxic air, with more than half of these people living in outer London. In a previous mention of air quality, a noble Lord—I apologise that I cannot remember who—said that they would support anything that improves our air quality.
We need to look at the impact ULEZ has had so far in central and inner London. So far, harmful NOx concentrations along roads are estimated to be 46% lower in central London and 21% lower in inner London than they would have been without ULEZ. There are 74,000 fewer non-compliant vehicles in the whole zone on an average day, a reduction of 60%. There are 47,000 fewer vehicles overall in the zone, which is a reduction of 5%.
The number of schools in areas exceeding the legal NOx limits fell by 96%. We know that children are far more vulnerable, partly because they are still developing and partly because they are smaller and nearer to the exhaust pipes. The drop of 96% is from 455 schools in 2016 to just 20 in 2019. Five million more people are expected to breathe cleaner air as a result of expanding ULEZ to outer London.
The mayor is also looking at a scrappage scheme and other ways to help residents. For the scrappage scheme, the mayor is providing £110 million of funding to support Londoners on lower incomes, disabled people, charities and micro-businesses. As part of this scheme, Londoners receiving certain benefits can apply for cash grants of up to £2,000 to scrap their non-compliant vehicles. Disabled people who want to scrap a non-compliant wheelchair-accessible vehicle can also apply for grants of £5,000. Charities, sole traders and micro-businesses registered in London can apply to scrap a van for a £5,000 grant or a minibus for a £7,000 grant.
More funds would allow more grants to be made. The mayor recently wrote to the Prime Minister asking the Government to match his funding for scrappage. The Government have provided scrappage funding in other cities, including £120 million in Greater Manchester,  £42 million in Bristol, £38 million in Birmingham and £30 million in Bradford. We commend the Government for doing this, but they have not extended the same support to London. Can I ask the Minister if she can explain why this is and whether it is something that would be reconsidered?
In conclusion, toxic air is killing, or contributing to the deaths of, many thousands of people in the UK every year, and the Conservative Government have not tackled the problem yet—we had much debate about this during the passage of the Environment Act. While this is a matter for the Mayor of London, during his leadership he has taken action to tackle killer air pollution and to put the health of residents first. I am sure that noble Lords have worked out by now that we do not support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. But we think it important to point out that, alongside the existing ULEZ, the mayor has supported Londoners, micro-businesses and charities to scrap or retrofit their non-compliant vehicles, so funds are available for the extension. We now need action from government and mayors across the country to do everything they can to stop the air pollution that is causing so much harm.

Baroness Scott of Bybrook: My Lords, Amendment 176, tabled by my noble friend Lord Moylan, would change the local consents required for traffic emission road-charging schemes to be introduced, and apply these new requirements retrospectively. I reassure the Committee that this amendment is not necessary for regions outside London as it maintains the status quo. In London, the amendment as drafted could remove established devolved powers from an elected mayor and as we have discussed in Committee, this is not our intention for devolution.
In London, under the Greater London Authority Act 1999 the mayor has the authority to create a new road scheme that charges users, or vary one, so long as doing so will directly or indirectly facilitate the achievement of the policies and proposals in the mayor’s transport strategy. As drafted, this amendment could be in conflict with the Greater London Authority Act, and it would potentially create legal uncertainty and conflict between the mayor and the London borough councils.
The Department for Transport has not made statements in support of the ULEZ: Transport Ministers have been completely clear that this has been a matter for the mayor to decide. I understand that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport has been engaging and will continue to engage with MPs whose constituents may be impacted by the proposed ULEZ expansion.
Outside London, charging schemes have been introduced for addressing congestion issues, improving air quality and raising funds for investment in new transport infrastructure and improving transport quality. The Transport Act 2000 already sets out how road-charging schemes can be introduced. In combined authority areas, these powers are held between the combined authority and the local traffic authorities—that is, the constituent authorities of the CA. Therefore,  outside London local authorities are already required to introduce schemes and existing legislation already delivers what this amendment seeks to achieve.
Additionally, the amendment would require the reconfirmation of a number of existing charging schemes and it would allow any local authority unilaterally to revoke them. These schemes have been introduced and agreed locally and, where they cover multiple local authorities, agreed jointly. Decisions on whether to amend or revoke these schemes would therefore also be made jointly, as the powers in the Transport Act 2000 already ensure. I nevertheless recognise how important this issue is not only to my noble friend but to many others, and not just in London. I am happy to meet with him to discuss these matters further.
Amendment 178B, also in the name of my noble friend Lord Moylan, seeks to lower the threshold for amending the Mayor of London’s final draft budget from two-thirds of assembly members present and voting to a simple majority. While the amendment would undoubtedly strengthen the power of the London Assembly and mirror the voting threshold applied at earlier stages of the assembly’s consideration of the mayor’s annual budget, it must also be balanced against the benefits of the current strong mayoral model in London. I agree with my noble friend that it is crucial in any of these systems that we have strong audit and scrutiny. That is why the Bill strengthens both audit and scrutiny committees in these new authorities.
I recognise my noble friend’s interest in and experience of London governance matters and I would be pleased, as I say, to engage with him not only on his earlier amendments but these. Perhaps we might review the operation of London’s devolution settlement separately from the Committee’s consideration of the Bill, and I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment at this time.

Lord Moylan: My Lords, I am very grateful for what was a very valuable debate and I shall briefly go through those who spoke.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, put his finger on it by saying that this is really a question that will not go away: about the balance of powers in areas that have strong regional government—combined authorities, metropolitan mayors and so forth—with the local councils, the constituent councils. As my noble friend the Minister made clear, those arrangements differ in different parts of the country, but we have to learn lessons from them and apply those lessons in an evolving way to existing structures; we cannot just dig our heels in and say that what was good in 1999 is good for ever. We have to be able to improve things; we understood that. On the question of subsection (2), I had a strong sense, listening to the noble Lord, that we were actually in violent agreement, but I am going to speak to him afterwards to discover if there is a difference between us and what can be done to reconcile our understanding of the boundary issue.
I was very grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. I give some credit to the Green Party here as an example of what can be achieved by a more democratic scrutiny of the  mayor’s budget. Only a few weeks ago, in consideration of the mayor’s budget the Green Party put forward in the assembly a costed amendment that would have required the mayor to introduce lavatories at up to 70 London stations. It got a majority in the London assembly; it was supported by the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats; of course, it fell. Having a majority is not enough in this sort of democracy. There is something very strange about that; however, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her support.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, was right to point out that the weakness of process and the rushing of air quality measures is provoking a backlash and cynicism among the voters. She also expressed very well the genuine and real suffering of those who face the prospect of the current proposed ULEZ scheme in London. I have to be honest: what I would expect if this amendment were passed is not that boroughs would actually block a mayoral scheme to introduce a ULEZ; they would moderate it, because they too are interested in better air quality, and so are local people. They would have their say, so it would be introduced in a slower and more manageable way, with more local consensus and better support for those who are in need of making what can be a very expensive transition.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, drew on a very long experience of local government again to put her finger on the question of the democratic deficit. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, made it abundantly clear that the Labour Party stands four-square behind the Labour mayor’s proposal to impose a ULEZ on outer London; there was not one word of criticism.
She mentioned the estimate of 4,000 premature deaths in London. I do not dispute that figure, but it is difficult to know what it means: is a premature death 10 years before you would have died or a week before? These are difficult figures to interpret, but that figure I regard as reliable and I am not disputing it in any way. However, I want to point out is that when I was deputy chairman of Transport for London—a post that came to an end in 2016—and on the board, the figure was also 4,000. The measures are introduced—the local traffic neighbourhoods, the ULEZes—but the estimated figure never changes. So is it really doing any good?
When the noble Baroness has to point out what good it is doing, she does not say that the figure  of 4,000 is coming down. Instead, with a very clever shift, she turns to the measurement of air quality and the number of schools passed and so on—but the question is outcomes, not outputs. The question is whether it is having that health effect. The estimate is amazingly stubborn—I would just say that.
There is a balancing issue. The noble Baroness made a point about boundaries and the possibility of a Swiss cheese type of scheme with boundary issues, and she has a point, although I think it is perfectly manageable. If Bromley or Kingston resiled from the scheme, we would just draw the boundary somewhere else until they were persuaded to come on board—I think it is quite manageable. The point I make to her is  there is also a glaring boundary issue between the Greater London area and surrounding counties. Those people in the surrounding counties are also affected, because they will not be able to get to their customary shops, their places of work and their often elderly and immobile relations, as we heard—but that boundary causes her no difficulty at all. A boundary between London and Surrey causes her no difficulty, but a boundary between Kingston, say, and the rest of Greater London is something that she feels is a block to the whole scheme. We need to be a little more honest about the fact that all these schemes have hard edges and there will always be sufferers, which is why time and consensus are so important.
I turn, briefly, to my noble friend. I was of course disappointed to hear her defend the status quo so resolutely, but greatly encouraged by the fact that she is willing to meet and discuss, prior to Report, both these issues with noble Lords who have spoken and taken an interest. I thank her and look forward to those discussions. In the meantime, with the leave of the Committee, I withdraw my amendment.
Amendment 176 withdrawn.

Amendment 177

Lord Northbrook: Moved by Lord Northbrook
177: After Clause 77, insert the following new Clause—“Local authority consultations: code of practice(1) Within 6 months after this section comes into force, the Secretary of State must publish a code of practice for public consultations by local authorities.(2) The code must recommend ways to ensure impartiality, including having consultation conducted by an independent third party, and having consultation materials and process pre-approved by such a party.”

Lord Northbrook: My Lords, I apologise that I was unable to take part in the Second Reading of the Bill.
Amendment 177 proposes the preparation of a code of practice for consultation by local authorities and public bodies on contentious matters to ensure that they are impartial and not manipulative—which follows on well from the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, on the last amendment.
Conservatives used to criticise Ken Livingstone, as leader of the GLC, for conducting bogus consultations designed to justify whatever decisions he had already made. Unfortunately, there have been a number of serious examples of similar behaviour by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea affecting the area of the borough in which I live—I declare my interest. I will mention here just two. The first was a council scheme to turn Sloane Square into a crossroads, when two bogus consultations were held that purported to show widespread support for the scheme. The council was pressurised to hold a third consultation, conducted impartially by an independent third party, that showed that 72% of respondents were opposed to the scheme, which was then dropped.
The second was the Cadogan Estates scheme to have dedicated parking bays created outside its high-end designer shops in Sloane Street. This was taken up by  the council and rebranded as a scheme to “improve the public realm”. Among the manipulative consultation materials, to give but one example, was a question on whether people wanted “more trees and planting”, which was welcomed because people generally like more trees. The result of this is that Cadogan now has permission to disfigure the street with 52 ugly “planters”—work on which has now started.
The request that the consultation be conducted impartially by an independent third party—failing which, the local residents’ associations wished to review and comment on the consultation materials in draft form—was ignored. The response of the Minister in the other place in a letter of 31 August last year to Richard Drax MP was as follows:
“On consultations by local authorities and public bodies, the Government has been clear that communities must be at the heart of the planning process. The Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill, as introduced into Parliament, will reform the process for producing plans so that it is faster and easier for communities to engage with. The Bill will increase and enhance the opportunities for involvement to ensure that development is brought forward in a way that works best for local people”.
The Minister’s response does not address the problem, perhaps because the central Government and all their predecessors like to be able to hold bogus consultations just as much as local authorities and public bodies. I suggest that His Majesty’s Government be obliged to draw up a code of practice for such consultations to ensure impartiality, either by having them conducted or having the consultation materials and process pre-approved by an independent third party.
Amendment 178 seeks to amend the legislation on business improvement districts, or BIDs, so that residents have a say in their establishment, policies and management bodies. There has been widespread criticism of the undemocratic way in which BIDs are established and operate. The Government’s website says:
“There is no limit on what projects or services can be provided through a BID. The only requirement is that it should be in addition to services provided by local authorities”.
As a result, powerful local businesses can push through projects for their own commercial benefit, for which they are willing to pay. My area, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, is happy to agree to them if they can be described as “improving the public realm”. Local residents may be affected by these projects—for example, streetscape, parking and traffic management—but cannot influence them.
We have recently had imposed on us two new  BID schemes led by the Cadogan Estate—one for the Brompton Road, since renamed Knightsbridge, and one for the King’s Road—in which residents’ views were ignored from the outset and look likely to continue to be ignored. The Brompton Association was deliberately excluded from the BID proposal for the Brompton Road, in what seems to me a manipulative ploy and an ominous sign of things to come.
The BID legislation should be amended so that local residents of a particular ward within which a BID falls are consulted on proposals for their establishment, are represented on the BID proposal groups which prepare the business plan, participate in the vote on the establishment and are represented on BID management bodies. In addition, local planning  authorities should be able to veto BID proposals if there is a significant objection from local residents, not just if they conflict with a significant policy of the local planning authority.
The response of the Minister in the other place, in the same letter that I quoted on Amendment 177, was that
“the majority of BIDs set Baseline Agreements with their local authority to demonstrate the additionality it will provide over the term of the BID. The Government encourages the use of clear agreements and the fostering of strong ongoing relationships between BID bodies and their local authorities, to make sure each is aware of their obligations towards one another and to agree changes to such agreements where appropriate. The BID itself is responsible for deciding on the mix of representatives to ensure their Governance Board is an effective decision-making body with the right skills. The legislation does not preclude local authorities from being represented on the BID board, nor residents or members of the community”.
The Minister’s written response does not answer the point. The legislation does not preclude residents from being represented on the board of a BID. However, what happens at present is that BID promoters make arrangements for their own commercial advantage and exclude resident representation, as the views of residents do not always coincide, and frequently conflict, with those of the business promoters. I beg to move.

Lord Moylan: My Lords, I had not expected to speak in this group, but since my noble friend Lord Northbrook has referred to a number of matters in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea—where I had the privilege of being deputy leader of the council for quite a period—I thought I would say just one or two things.
The current proposals for Sloane Square I have nothing to do with, I know nothing about; I ceased to be involved in the council in 2018, so I cannot speak for them. The other example my noble friend gave of what he called a “bogus consultation”, I was responsible for. Noble Lords might not be aware that this is an archaeological exercise because he has had to reach back to 2007. It is true that there were three consultation exercises, but I assure my noble friend that the first two—which supported the proposals—were not bogus at all; they were carried out in a very serious way. Indeed, the results surprised me in that there was as much support as there was. The third one that he referred to was conducted after a year of campaigning by opponents in what was quite the most unpleasant year of my life, certainly politically. It was a very long and really quite vicious campaign, all of it funded by the council so that the residents could have as much say as possible. It found against the scheme, which was not proceeded with.
Where I can find a level of agreement with my noble friend is in relation to BIDs. Here, I declare my interest in being a resident of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, as he is. I recently discovered that there is a BID to be introduced in Kensington High Street that is going to include Kensington Square, which I do not live in, but which I overlook from an adjacent street. The Kensington Square residents’ association has not been consulted about this, and it is to be introduced in Thackeray Street—which is where  I do more or less live. The relevant residents’ association body for that has also not been consulted, as far as I can make out.
I think that in relation to BIDs my noble friend is putting his finger on a very important point: they do involve a transfer of say—I do not say control—to local businesses, which will pay extra money and expect to get what they want for that extra money. That transfer—those expenditures—can have an affect on local residents, and they should have some involvement in the establishment of a BID. I did not imagine I would ever have to go down the memory lane of Sloane Square improvements again in my life, but it is good that my noble friend has brought back those not always pleasant memories. I am with him when it comes to business improvement districts.

Baroness Hayman of Ullock: My Lords, our Amendment 511 is in this group. This is to ask the Secretary of State to inform each local authority of any new responsibilities before the commencement of relevant provisions.
Clause 222 has the list of the commencement  of relevant provisions, so the amendment sits under Clause 222. However, it refers to Clause 74, which proposes to give the Secretary of State significant powers to intervene in a local authority regarding capital finance, including limiting borrowing and/or directing a local authority to sell specific assets. Such an intervention would follow a review that could be triggered by an assessment against a specific financial formula, the thresholds for which are to be set by regulation after the Bill has received Royal Assent.
So my question to the Minister is: how can we assess the impact of this provision without knowing those thresholds, without an impact assessment, and with incomplete information? Unsurprisingly, local government has expressed concerns about this. I understand that the measures relate to government concerns about some councils’ approach to capital and borrowing, but we need to set this in context. The LGA has drawn attention to the fact that rising energy prices, rising inflation and national minimum wage pressures are set to add around £3.6 billion in unforeseen extra cost pressures on council budgets by 2024-25. This is on top of the £15 billion cuts to council budgets by central government over the previous decade. Councils are simultaneously managing significant spending reductions and a growing demand for services.
The reductions in central government grants since 2010 have understandably led councils to look for new ways to generate revenue in order to secure services in the long term and move towards greater self-sufficiency. Councils have been pushed into commercialism and borrowing, and have made investments to contribute to their local economy and their environment, such as building new houses, introducing energy efficiency improvements, and providing necessary infrastructure such as schools and roads. I do acknowledge that there are only a very few councils where this has involved huge sums, because councils have to follow strict rules and assessments, as required by the Department for  Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy’s prudential code for capital financing in local authorities also needs to be followed when making borrowing and investment decisions, and those rules have been reviewed and updated very recently.
Given the framework and the new rules that councils already have to follow, I ask the Minister: what is the enhanced intervention process likely to mean in practice? It is crucial that the proposed changes do not have unintended consequences, and there is a danger that the strict, formula-based approach that the Bill suggests could have wide and potentially unintended implications, particularly if there are any problems with the thresholds and the metrics that the Government have not yet identified in terms of how they would work in practice. It is important that we ensure proportionality in this.  I understand that the Government have said that the stated intention is for only a handful of councils to be affected, but if the levels are not set right or if the calculations are not done effectively, this may end up not being the case.
The purpose of my amendment is therefore to ask the Government to undertake full engagement with local government, including full consultations with councils and their representative bodies, before enacting the regulations. The advice from councils and the LGA would help the Government to preserve the legitimate and important concept of prudential borrowing, which we would all support, while ensuring that the new arrangements genuinely addressed the Government’s concerns.
I will comment very briefly on the two amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook. On the amendment concerning the local authority consultation’s code of practice, noble Lords know of my particular interest around consultation; I was an associate of the Consultation Institute. It is really important that we have proper, good-quality, high-standard consultation.
I will put on the record the Consultation Institute’s seven best-practice principles for consultation, because they fit very well with the noble Lord’s amendment and what it is trying to achieve. They are: first, integrity; secondly, visibility; thirdly, accessibility; fourthly, transparency; fifthly, disclosure—which is very important. The sixth is fair interpretation—in other words, when you have a consultation, you do not just take what is on paper and move along with it, you properly consider it and interpret the evidence, and then demonstrate your decision-making based on that. Finally, the seventh principle is publication of that decision-making.
Whether or not we need the guidelines outlined in the amendment I do not know; I am sure the Minister will have to say something about this, because there are Cabinet Office guidelines that already exist, and it may well be that they could be used for this particular purpose. That would be very interesting. On the business improvement districts, again it is really important that there is proper involvement of the local community; that is a very important thing to consider.
I will end by saying that I thought they were very interesting proposals and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in response.

Baroness Pinnock: My Lords, I will comment briefly on the three amendments in this group, starting with Amendment 511 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, about capital finance controls in local government. All I would say is that every local authority is required to have an external audit by a professional audit company to undergo a thorough inspection of its finances. It seems to me that the easiest way round this issue is to extend the requirement of the external audit to include a detailed investigation of any capital financing arrangements. That would reduce or eliminate all the additional requirements in the Bill and put the requirement on the external audit company to do a thorough audit of the council’s finances. If problems are exposed, the issues can then be resolved. This would mean that other local authorities which behave prudently are not caught up in the fairly strict regime that is being proposed.
Turning briefly to the amendments in the name  of the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, I totally  support his Amendment 177 on improving standards of consultation for public bodies, particularly local authorities. There ought to be—I am sure there is—a standard for consultations that every public body, particularly local authorities, ought to adhere to.
On business improvement districts, I say that it is shocking to me that they could be established without full consultation and understanding by local residents. I would say, just as a point of history really, that our local councils used to have a big voice from local business. Businesses used to want to be elected to serve on their local council, where their voices could be heard and they could influence decisions that were made. Sadly, that tradition has disappeared, and there are fewer and fewer businesspeople who seek election to local authorities. This has led to the use of another way of trying to engage businesses in improving small areas such as this by giving them powers through the business improvement districts. So, yet again, these districts bypass local democracy, which is why I support the proposals in Amendment 178.

Baroness Scott of Bybrook: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Northbrook for moving Amendment 177. I cannot respond on specific local authorities, as he may realise, but I think that noble Lords have had a good discussion about said local authorities.
Statutory frameworks and clear rules for consultation already exist in some service areas, such as planning, and provide guidance on the required length and scope of consultation. There is a statutory publicity code, which is clear that all local authority communications must be objective and even-handed. Councils can carry out non-statutory consultations to allow residents to shape local decisions and plans. Greater involvement for local people can only be a good thing, and local authorities should be free to adapt their approach based on local need and requirements for these non-statutory consultations. A requirement for all consultations to be carried out by third parties would impose additional costs on local authorities, which might encourage less consultation and engagement, rather than more. I hope  that, in the light of this explanation, my noble friend will agree to withdraw his amendment and not press his other amendments in this group.
Amendment 178 concerns business improvement districts—or BIDs, as they are often called. It is best practice for a BID to promote its actions so that levy payers and the community can see what is being achieved. Many BIDs keep an up-to-date website and engage regularly via social media to discuss their work. BIDs are intended to be business-led, business-funded organisations. It is right that the businesses that will be required to fund the BID make the decisions on whether there should be consultations.
My noble friend Lord Northbrook asked about local authorities on BID boards. There are local authorities on BID boards in Birmingham, Bristol, London and Newcastle, as well as in other places.
Regarding the review of BID arrangements, as I have said, the legislation does not preclude residents and members of the community from being consulted on a BID proposal or represented on a BID board. Many authorities are on BID boards in their local areas. We are not looking to review business improvement districts; in fact, we are looking closely at work that is being done on community improvement districts, which include community groups, local people and businesses. That work is being run by Power to Change, and we are keeping a close eye on the pilots and following them with interest.
Amendment 511, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, would apply across the Bill and would require the Secretary of State to give local authorities advance notice where provisions creating new responsibilities for them are to be commenced. In any circumstances, those gaining new responsibilities should be aware of them in good time. However, we do not consider that this amendment is needed. As I hope has been clear from our responses earlier in the debate, the Government entirely agree on the importance of collaboration with local authorities for our reforms to be successful. We are already working with local authorities on many of our reforms and will continue to do so. I can therefore confirm that the Government have no intention of introducing responsibilities for local authorities without the appropriate preparation, including supporting them both to understand those responsibilities and to manage any transition. In many cases, this work will include further consultation with local authorities and others to shape regulations and inform supporting guidance.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, asked a couple of questions. I will look at those and give her a written answer. I hope that noble Lords will withdraw or not press their amendments.

Lord Northbrook: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who contributed to the debate on my amendments. I seemed to have good support on Amendment 178 from the Labour Front Bench and the Lib Dems, but my Front Bench did not seem keen at all. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Moylan for his experience and memory regarding my consultation comments on Amendment 177. I would like to have a  word with him on this outside the Chamber afterwards. I am sorry for the personal abuse he may have suffered, which is entirely unnecessary.
I will read Hansard carefully. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment 177 withdrawn.
Amendment 178 not moved.

Amendment 178A

Lord Naseby: Moved by Lord Naseby
178A: After Clause 77, insert the following new Clause—“Voting restrictions in local authority housing matters relating to City of LondonIn section 618 of the Housing Act 1985 (Common Council of the City of London), omit subsections (3) and (4).”Member's explanatory statementThis Clause removes a restriction applying uniquely to the City of London Corporation’s Common Council members which prevents them from voting in local authority housing matters where they have a pecuniary interest. It brings them into line with the regime for such interests which applies to councillors of local authorities under the Localism Act 2011.

Lord Naseby: My Lords, I apologise for not being able to take part at Second Reading.
Amendment 178A, in my name, is about the City of London, where local authority housing functions are carried out by the City of London Corporation through its Court of Common Council. The City is subject to the same member rules governing participation in discussion or voting on local authority housing matters, where a member has a pecuniary interest, as those which apply to councillors of local authorities. These rules are contained in the Localism Act 2011.
The rules include an ability for local authorities to issue dispensations to allow councillors to participate and vote where it is right for them to do so to fulfil their democratic responsibilities. However, this ability to issue dispensation does not apply to the City because an additional provision, contained in what is now Section 618(3) and (4) of the Housing Act 1985, bans City members outright from voting on such matters. The contravention of this ban constitutes a criminal offence.
The history of the Housing Act provisions have been examined by the City’s law officers and discussed with officials, but their origin remains unexplained. They have simply been repeated without comment in successive consolidations of housing legislation over the years. My amendment seeks to address this anomaly by removing them. This will make the City of London subject to the same regime as local authorities. It is clearly only right that City residents should have the same entitlement to be represented in housing matters as applies elsewhere. I hope that my noble friend will agree. I beg to move.

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle: My Lords, with apologies, and being aware of the hour, I will be brief. I oppose in the strongest terms the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Naseby.
The City of London is the last rotten borough. The elections to the City of London can in no way be described as democratic. There is also the City of London Cash, a massive fund amassed over many centuries and explicitly excluded from freedom of information. The last figure that I have, from 2012, is of a £100 million per year income.
The rights of the City of London go back to William the Conqueror, who said that he would maintain all the rights and privileges that the citizens had hitherto enjoyed. It is about time that we finally modernised and got past that. In 1894, it was recommended by a royal commission that the City of London Corporation be abolished. I put on the record my desire to work with any noble Lord who wishes finally to reach that obvious conclusion.

Earl Howe: My Lords, as my noble friend has explained, Amendment 178A seeks to remove voting restrictions on either housing issues or related planning decisions applying uniquely to members of the common council of the City of London who are also tenants of the City of London Corporation. Sections 618(3) and (4) of the Housing Act 1985 mean that, while an individual can be a councillor of the City of London if they are a housing tenant of the corporation, they cannot apply for a dispensation to vote on housing or related planning decisions. Voting in breach of Section 618 is a criminal offence. This is not dissimilar to the regime that applies under the Localism Act 2011 which  also creates a criminal offence where a member  fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with the requirements to declare their disposable pecuniary interests, and takes part in council meetings.
Councillors in any authority elsewhere in England, operating under the disposable pecuniary interest regime in the Localism Act 2011, can apply for a dispensation to vote on matters where they have a declared interest—but there is no such discretion for the City of London to grant a dispensation where Section 618 applies. In short, this means that City of London councillors are being treated differently from all other councillors in England. I am aware that the City of London has raised the issue on previous occasions. I am grateful  to my noble friend for his amendment. Between now and Report, I undertake to give the matter proper consideration and would be happy to arrange a discussion with my noble friend if he would find this helpful.

Lord Naseby: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend on the Front Bench. I willingly accept his kind offer of further discussions.  I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment 178A withdrawn.
Amendment 178B not moved.
House resumed.
House adjourned at 10.07 pm.